Query - Pre-Amp technology OLD vs. NEW

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack Hammer
  • Start date Start date
J

Jack Hammer

New member
Advances in technology seem to be all over the place. Cell phones getting better, smaller, digital cameras becomming better, computerized this or that, flat screens etc. and so forth. In the field of professional audion, does the fact that certain vintage gear increased in value and has remained some of the most desirable pieces mean that advances in technology have done nothing to advance the state-of-the-art in recording sciences.

Succinctly stated without any bias towards purchase decisions, here is the question: Is there a difference between old pre-amp technology and new pre-amp technology and if so, what is it and is it for the better or the worse?

Ultimately, I am wondering this: There is general concesus on this bbs rgarding certain equipment. For instance, it has often been stated that pre-amps in the around $500.00 range (that is tube pre-amps in that range) are virtually worthless. Also, nobody expects the new generation of $200.00 to $300.00 pre-amps to compete with the 2k and 3k designs of yesteryear. Why? Should not the advances in technology apparent in the reduction of price and increase of quality effect this area as well. After all, were it not for that formula in computer technology, many of our now better than ever home studios would not exist. So, what is the story?
 
Jack,

> Is there a difference between old pre-amp technology and new pre-amp technology and if so, what is it and is it for the better or the worse? <

Excellent question.

> certain vintage gear increased in value <

Yeah, as if audio gear - or even a solid-body electric guitar - could improve with age as does a fine old violin. Not likely.

My theory is that folks today hear some of the great recordings made back in the 70s, and when they are unable to make their own amateur efforts sound as good wrongly assume they need the same gear used back then. Of course, the real reason so many old recordings sound great is because they were made in really good studios with really good acoustics by really good recording engineers! And that those recordings came out so well is in spite of the poorer quality of gear and recording devices available back then.

Frankly, I am proud of the fact that I have no tube gear in my studio. :) Tubes suck in my opinion, except for guitar amps where you want that sound. And you are 100% correct that today's technology far exceeds what was used 20+ years ago. I am sure the preamps in my Mackie 1202 are cleaner, have a better frequency response, and add less distortion than any transformer-based preamp from the 1960s and 1970s.

--Ethan
 
Jack Hammer said:
For instance, it has often been stated that pre-amps in the around $500.00 range (that is tube pre-amps in that range) are virtually worthless.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that they are worthless. They aren't as good as ones that cost much more than that, but that could be said for solid-state preamps too. To a great extent you get what you pay for in audio until you hit the point of diminishing returns.

I believe there will be some amazing cheap preamps coming eventually. They might not use the same components as the expensive ones but they could have a sound that is very favorable for digital recording. Digital is still in it's infancy compared to analog and all the possibilties haven't all been explored yet.

The bottom feeders will have a field day with preamps just like they are having with microphones and CD-burning technology.
 
To a large extent, technology has been catching up in this area.

Microchip opamps are getting a lot better at amplifying a mic-level signal to a line-level signal. A good burr-brown, for example, can do a very admirable job of replacing what used to be done with loads of complex discreet circuitry. And they can do it very clean and accurately, and with very impressive distortion figures.

The problem seems to be with our personal, subjective tastes. Technology builds a better, smoother, slicker, cleaner mouse trap. People listen to the result and they grow tired of the clean, sterile sound and wax nostalgic over the "warm," vintage" sound their ears are used to. So the problem, then, really isn't with technology. It's with us. Technology gives us the progress we desperately clamor for, but when we get it we just pout and want things back the way they were. :)

Well, a lot of what went in to getting that sound we wax nostalgic for is in the inefficiency of it's design. It's extemely difficult, I imagine, to emulate the subtle, subjective nuances of vaccum tubes, transformers, and a discreet signal path without actually using tubes, transformers, and a discreet signal path. :) All of which can be very difficult to produce for $500 and still make a profit. It's expensive. You can try to emulate it cheaply, but it just isn't going to be the same to a lot of people.

So in other words, technology has advanced, but our ears haven't in many ways.

The good news is that if you aren't stuck in the past, and you like advancement . . . and you like the sound of "clean," "crisp," and "accurate," well then now is a good time for you to be alive. You can get a very clean and accurate amplification of your signal from your Mackie board for next to nothing. The m-audio dmp3 boasts accurate frequency response out to 200 khz, and it's as quiet as anything you can buy at any price. And you can pick up two channels for $200. Similarly, the Grace design is highly-regarded as a "world-class" solid-state pre (whatever that means), and it goes for $600.

My question to you, then is "Where the hell have you been? Under a rock, I'm assuming?" :)

That's alright, though, we'll let you slide this time.
 
Jack Hammer said:
Advances in technology seem to be all over the place. ...
Click to expand...

Yes ... that's why rockets for manned spaceflight are so much more powerful than they were in 1969 and airliners are so much faster.
 
Re: Re: Query - Pre-Amp technology OLD vs. NEW

Ethan Winer said:

. I am sure the preamps in my Mackie 1202 are cleaner, have a better frequency response, and add less distortion than any transformer-based preamp from the 1960s and 1970s.

--Ethan
Click to expand...


Ethan , this is simple pure BS, have you ever tried any of these old
preamps? Early 70`s Telefunken/Tab/Siemens transitor preamps has specs way beyond any Mackie. They sound a lot clearer, a lot ballsier and have less noise.
Have you compared a Mackie pre to a Neve pre, or API?
I guess you haven`t!

And saying tubes suck is really ignorant of you, stating they only work for guitar amps. I guess you haven`t tried a good tube pre either. A well designed tube pre is very transparent, not grainy or dark.

Yesterdays technology isn`t bad, they had really high standards back then, and of course a lot has happened since, but when it comes to serios audio, almost any new preamp is based on a "old" design.

Amund
 
Amund,

I have to disagree. I'll bet there isn't a
spec that the Mackie doesn't do better than any TAB/whatever/Telefunken whatsis.

Noise, distortion, phase response, any danm buzz word you want to name, the Mackie will meet or exceed.

But Greg won't ever sell anybody with ears one of his if you've ever heard a V76 or 72 or whatever the hell the number is.
 
Hate to burst your ego bubble

yo chessrock, I hate to burst you ego bubble but the reason I asked the question in the first place is becuase I have not been under a rock as you so eloquently put it. I have been following the discourse on this site among others, articles etc. and I have been wondering why there is a general consensus that newer technology at better prices does not meet the standard let alone surpass the standards of older technology. Take, for instance, the new UAD-1 ppowered plug in for MAC and PC. Highly touted and why, because it emulates devices such as an LA 2A or a Pultec or an 1176 etc. Following your line of reasoning, these devises from the manufacturers who presumabely have able eared persons on thier staff, should have a DMP3 or GRACE pre amp as thier model or for that matter, Mackie preamps. But, of course, this is not the story. Therefore another or rather, other questions are raised. Is what the makers of the UAD1 are doing simply marketing. Merely appealing to the base desires somewhat described in your (Chessrock's) post, or, is Chessrock merely trying too hard to show some sort of superiority of knowledge wongly thinking that the purchase of equipment is a contest of wits as opposed to an artistiect decision. the empirical proof seems overwhelming. Those in the know, those with success, those with big names AND LARGE BUDGETS, do not, as a rule, purchase and use many of the more modest offerings in pre-amp design for instance. Companies such as Avalon and Manely, hardly budget items, are found in most of the racks of the most active and succesful musicians/producers/engineers in the business. Also, the bottom feeders are not purchasing used Fairchilds for $20,000.00. Those with alot more knowledge, talent, experience, track records and above all, those with the best ears are making these purchases and keeping the value of thos items so high. Otherwise, a used Fairchild would be in the junk section at garage sales. They are not generally found in such places. So, to sum up, merely leveling an assinine insult at me whilst attempting to refute the general wisdom of the entire recording community does not lend any greater weight to your argument. In fact, if anything, it tends to imply that you operating on a bias nurtured by your won insecurities about not having the "big boy" gear. Maybe you are not rich, or did not have the resources others did when you were growing up. Maybe you have a resentment towards the priceier things in life borne of some sort of jealousy of class identity. In the end, you cannot seriously believe that a Hyundai is every bit as good as a Ferrari even though both can get you from point A to B in the same amount of time under most everyday ral circumstances. And of course, in the end, no pre-amp, compressor, mixer, microphone, cable, computer, direct box, reverb, dealy fuzz box, wah pedal amplifier, drum or guitar ever made a note of music without a musician operating it and it is only that which is created using whatever tools are available that has any real value.
 
Oh, sorry, I'll try to make shorter, simpler phrases and ideas for those that are challenged.
 
Jack, buddy.

I don't know what that was, but you sound like you've got some hostilities to work off. I was only jokin' about that living under a rock statement. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry I upset you.

But that's alright, guy. I get that way too.

I get the feeling something else is eating at you and it has nothing to do with preamps, UAD, or chessrock. :D Take a breather from whatever it is that's getting you so worked up. Try to have some fun, have a good laugh and give your mind a rest.

Life is too short.

Good thread topic you started, by the way.
 
Dan Kennedy said:
Amund,

I have to disagree. I'll bet there isn't a
spec that the Mackie doesn't do better than any TAB/whatever/Telefunken whatsis.

Noise, distortion, phase response, any danm buzz word you want to name, the Mackie will meet or exceed.

But Greg won't ever sell anybody with ears one of his if you've ever heard a V76 or 72 or whatever the hell the number is.
Click to expand...


Well. I guess you know a hell lot more about this than I will ever know........
I have tried your MP-2NV and it`s a hell of a pre!!!
But I`m not selling my Telefunkens!


Amund
 
Amund, I think you and Dan are more in agreement than you know.

First lets all agree there is poorly designed and built new gear and same goes for vintage gear. So its important to compare apples to apples.

But, the most important point about all of these comments and some thing Dan clearly pointed out is specs don't make "a sound".

Some thing like a Mackie can look good on paper but sound like mush. High end audio design reminds me of the same issues in RF (radio frequency) and that is it is all FM. Freaking Magic ! :)
 
I wish I had some Telefunkens!

I really did mean to point out that just because the specs are top-notch the preamp isn't necesarily going to sound great.

I don't mean to slam the Mackies either, because they really do a good job, especially at the price point, it's quite amazing.

But a preamp in a lot of ways is an instrument, and like any instrument it can be suited to the music, or not.

Drum overheads I like clean pre's, accoustic stringed instruments I like clean pres, snare, kick and tom's I like preamps with color and vocals fall either way depending on the voice, the mic, and the tune.
 
No harm no foul

Yeah, Chess, sometimes I get a little over passionate on things, sometimes its connected to overwork in other areas. Sorry I overreacted to the under the rock stuff, I am quite aware that it was not meant with malice since malice is a personal thing and we do not know each other on a personal level. Therein lies the wonder of the internet and its promises of communication without all the personal baggage. That is what can make this site so valuable. The ability to focus on the message rather than the messanger. Point well taken.

Today is Sunday, time to kick back and chill....
 
By the way...

This months Mix magazine has a piece on Abbey Road Studios that offers somewhat of a perspective on the issue raised in this thread. Originally called EMI studios, they originally built all of thier own equipment, by hand, painstakingly so it seems. They have updated the studios and added modern equipment. I am sure they retain some of the old but interestingly enough, the old boards on which the Beatles and other luminaries of the recording world have been sold for large amounts. Of course they are collectors items but they were not sold for collection, I believe that are in use elsewhere for their unique sound. Ultimately, from the article, I realize that each piece of eqipment, old or new, has its own trademark sound. It depends what you like, what you want, what you need and what your ultimate use for the thing is. Most of all, Abbey Road is most celebrated for its history, for the aura it creates in the studio and, for the wonderful and large recording rooms originally designed for classical recordings. That is probably the biggest selling point and the thing that sets Abbey Road apart from many, many other studios. Choices ultimately is the key. One should have a tube pre amp if the music and instrumentation calls for it, solid state if otherwise, clean and transparent if needed, colored with a bit of harmonci distortion if that be the case. So, ultimately, the reason why there are so many posts about preamps is that there are no absolute answers. The only answer to "which is the best pre amp" is IT DEPENDS!!
 
Re: Re: Re: Query - Pre-Amp technology OLD vs. NEW

Amund,

> have you ever tried any of these old preamps? <

I've been in plenty of studios and heard plenty of old and new gear.

> Early 70`s Telefunken/Tab/Siemens transitor preamps has specs way beyond any Mackie. <

Please post some side by side spec comparisons.

> They sound a lot clearer, a lot ballsier and have less noise. <

Clearer and ballsier are subjective, but noise is easily measured. Often "clearer" is just some added high end, and "ballsier" is also an EQ concept in many cases. You can always make something "clearer" by turning up the treble a little, or adding a slight peak at 10 KHz. or whatever.

> A well designed tube pre is very transparent, not grainy or dark. <

Yes, if it's really well designed it can be good. But even if you could make a tube preamp that's as good as a modern solid state version, there will still be problems with the tubes aging and changing tone quality, or being microphonic and ringing when you turn up the loudspeakers, and other such deficiencies. And the transformers will always add yet more distortion and HF ringing. Yes, I know, really good audio transformers can be very good too. If you spend enough. But modern solid state designs are better, and don't change their sound over time, and don't have to be warmed up half an hour before the session, and they cost a lot less.

--Ethan
 
Ethan, If you read the previous post the specs thing is sorted out, Mackie has specks that meets or exceeds any Telefunken.
My point is that an old Telefunken pre(solid-state) is a preamp that sounds way better than a Mackie, the Mackie is good considering the cost, but still far from a "pro" micpre.
Dan Kennedy(Great River Electronics) said:

"But Greg won't ever sell anybody with ears one of his if you've ever heard a V76 or 72 or whatever the hell the number is."

I couldn`t agree more!


Amund
 
The whole technology issue doesn't really apply when your dealing with something as simple as a preamp. They can make the components cheaper but the real value of a good preamp is not the total price of it's parts.

You pay for the superior design, manufacturing techniques and quality assurance. These are all 'time' issues and the expense will never go down unless the quality of the people doing it is lower.

Devices that do a lot of processing are getting cheaper but there isn't a lot of processing going on in a preamp. Effects processors get cheaper and better but the simple stuff will probably never change much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top