The 2 Camps of Preamps

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark4man
  • Start date Start date
mark4man

mark4man

MoonMix Studios
People...

I recently acquired a Grace Design 101 mic/inst. pre for my project studio. Sounds beautiful. A few months ago, I acquired a Korg D1600mkII digital multitracker for location recording. Sounds beautiful.

Now...I know enough about classes of operation & component quality to be able to understand that the Grace is heads & heels above the Korg in performance (& I'm sure when I get around to an a/b test I'll hear the difference)...but I wonder...

...There's lots of little project studios around that record local artists, using for example, Mackie mixers, w/ their onboard XDR pre’s. Those guys swear by their boards...wouldn't have anything else. There's also lots of little project studios around that have racks of external pre's...RNP's & Focusrite's & dbx's & Great River's & Langevin's & MindPrint's, etc. Those guys swear by their gear, also.

Today I read a review on a $200 pro audio level 1/2 rack stereo pre...& it says it's super quiet & faithfully reproduces signal with quality & headroom that would rival any studio console.

What's goin' on? Who's right? Is everybody right? Has the quality of even cheaply produced components reached a point where good signal amplification is less than a hundred bucks per channel (& doesn't sound that much different from units at $500 a channel?) Forget the differences between tube & xformer & solid-state; & the coloration of the sound produced...I'm talking about; it seems like they can take a preamp design from a quality mixer (which is crammed side-by-side w/ 15 other identical pre's), put two of them in an external box & have a boutique product with a high price tag.

So...what's the difference? Does Class-A operation sound only marginally better than Class-A mode? Are the op-amp based pre's in a pro audio level board only a teeny, tiny bit more spurious than the self-biasing, fully differential, DC servoed, transimpedance instrumentation amps in a free-standing boutique model?

Can the indie artist walking into the studio off the street hear the difference? Can the mastering engineer?

[I know this a philosophical type rant...but I'm interested in hearing opinions on the state of the art from other members.]

Thanks,

mark4man
 
This is an on-going discussion.
My findings are:
1) If I can hear the difference, there is one
2) I hear a big difference between my Phoenix DRS and my safe sound (Phoenix much better)
3) I hear a difference between my Phoenix and my John Hardy (neither better, just different)
4) I hear a big difference between my Dynaudio monitors and my JBL's or Tannoys (Dynaudio is the best monitor I have heard, save the real high end stuff)
I hear a big difference between my Brauner mic and my NTK or Groove Tube (The Phantom C is like "butta") but I like my RE20, SM7 and oktavas and neumann too
5) I too use a Korg mkII for recording, going in digitally through a Kurzweil Rumour ( I hear a big difference between these converters and going in analog, mostly because you can turn the pre down and not use it but the only way to bypass it is to go in digi.
So in my opinion, yeah, it's all worth it if I can hear a difference. I think it's like a box of crayons, the more colors you have, yadda yadda yadda
 
It's funny you mention Grace and Mackie XDR preamps.

I also have a pair of Grace 101 preamps and a Mackie 1202 (I think that's the model number) VLZ Pro with the XDR preamps. Here's my take: the preamps on the Grace are super clean and quiet, even fully cranked. The preamps on the Mackie board also sound very good. I'd say they're more characterful: not as clean and more midrangy. But often that's just what my ear wants : An ever-so-slightly dirty/honky sound (For what it's worth I'm into old-time country--pre 1950). You can get a 1202 for nothing now. I bought mine used for $150. Why not have both?
 
Thanks, guys...

Good info.

Big Kenny:
I too use a Korg mkII for recording, going in digitally through a Kurzweil Rumour
Click to expand...
I thought the Rumour was an FX processor, right? How does that work...you're using the Rumour only for ADC? I don't get it.

Thanks,

mark4man
 
mark4man said:
Today I read a review on a $200 pro audio level 1/2 rack stereo pre...& it says it's super quiet & faithfully reproduces signal with quality & headroom that would rival any studio console.]
Click to expand...
What's goin' on? Who's right? Is everybody right? Has the quality of even cheaply produced components reached a point where good signal amplification is less than a hundred bucks per channel (& doesn't sound that much different from units at $500 a channel?) ][/QUOTE]

I think the days when $500 per channel gets you head and shoulders above $200 per channel across the board aren't here yet. Someone dragged up a thread from a few years ago that asked this same question at some point. The consensus seemed to be that going from $1-200 to $500 a channel wasn't enough of a jump to provide significant improvement. I think that though there are much better pres available in that range than there were, the range of sound quality in that price range is wider, and there are a few exceptions, the basic principle still holds.

mark4man said:
So...what's the difference? Does Class-A operation sound only marginally better than Class-A mode? Are the op-amp based pre's in a pro audio level board only a teeny, tiny bit more spurious than the self-biasing, fully differential, DC servoed, transimpedance instrumentation amps in a free-standing boutique model?]
Click to expand...

Class A is a bit of an abused term adopted by marketing, if you ask me. I think if you hear a difference between a Class A device and a non-Class A device, there are other things beside that one fact affecting the sound. Class A is no indication of quality. A well-designed and built unit beats a cheap badly built one every time, topology doesn't matter.

mark4man said:
Can the indie artist walking into the studio off the street hear the difference? Can the mastering engineer?
mark4man
Click to expand...

The inexperienced man off the street, maybe not. Some who has been recording for a few years, probably. I got my Mackie 1604 about twelve years ago, and thought it was the bomb. A few years later, what I heard as crisp and clear turned into brittle and thin. So it goes. :)
 
It is important to remember that as musicians and engineers we all grow constantly. Often times we are happy with what we have and what we are doing until we experience something better. Sometimes people even try and justify their own spendings be being overly happy with them as well. Kenny really hit it on the head. If you think it sounds different or better, than it is. It may not be for the next person, but who cares about them? :D
 
mark4man said:
Thanks, guys...

Good info.

Big Kenny:
I thought the Rumour was an FX processor, right? How does that work...you're using the Rumour only for ADC? I don't get it.

Thanks,


I run the signal through a pre amp then a little comp into the Rumour (with or without effects) and convert to digi into the korg
Click to expand...
 
kenny,

are you positive that the conversion on the rumor is gonna be ages away form the korg? i too have a korg (d1200) and i find the sound to be cristal clear (going through the inputs with a dmp3), boring as hell, but cristal clear..in that sense..good..i guess..with that said i really thought that going through the inputs would bypass the preamp section, but then again, if i use the gain on the korg it will affect the dmp3 so..i guess its only logical that the preamps are not bypassed..at least not entirely..but i always thought that the korg had pretty decent conversion..at least mid level...especially considering that since these machines started coming out, comercial albums have been made with them (just check cdbaby)..i know that for example, the 32xd is a superior machine, etc..but anyway, i always thought that these 1200s and 1600s were pretty decent too...

again, what the conversion on the rumor and what makes it so special? that might be an aproach i want to take in the near future if it really works...
 
Like I said, I can hear the difference. The Rumour is a great piece that I would have anyway, the converters are a bonus. I can't stand the pres on the Korg, though many folks I know find them usable.
 
Well it's pretty universally known that it doesn't matter how expensive the preamp is, if it sounds right for the song. However, on the same token, I've owned an Avalon M5 ($1500), and I currently own as Groove Tubes Brick ($400), and I honestly think The Brick beats it hands down. I've also owned a Presonus Tubepre (which I swapped out the tube for a better quality one), and there's a big loss in detail when compared to either of the preamps I mentioned. However, I still keep the little guy around when I want something fuzzed out and lacking a little definiation.

As far as the quality of parts and what not, the technology is allowing things to be a lot closer than they used to be for the money. But it really just boils down to what sounds right for the song.
 
Big Kenny said:
Like I said, I can hear the difference. The Rumour is a great piece that I would have anyway, the converters are a bonus. I can't stand the pres on the Korg, though many folks I know find them usable.
Click to expand...

well i dont use the pres in it..even if going into the inputs with external preamps doesnt totally bypass them. i was just wondering if you could tell a little more about the conversion in the rumour...do u go into the korg at 24/48? i dont think the korgs can take more than 48, i thought it would be 44 tops..but still...can u tell me more?

also, i always thought (i might be wrong) that, sending the signal through many "things", would kind of degrade it, regardless of conversion quality and that that should be avoided...well not in your case cause you're going digi in...but im saying in general..i think its pertinent for this discussion..
 
1) Thanks: easychair, tsl92802, xstatic, PHILANDDON, Big Kenny, diogo...for your input. All good stuff; & all very relative.

2) Just out of curiosity...I had a chance to pick up the TASCAM 2488 around the same time I was considering the D1600mkII; & then went with the 1600. I'm wondering now if I made the right decision. How are the preamps in the 2488? How about the converters?

Thanks again,

mark4man
 
Mark..

dont fret over that...the D-1600 is a far better machine than the 2488...its general opinion. The pres in the korg units have a sweet spot that you have to find..i never use them so i dunno..but its there...they're useful...tascam aims towards a whole other market segment...these korg machines, as u may know are capable of some really surprising results.

with that said ive been thinking of a downgrade..ill never use the multitude of options that the d1200 gives me, let along the d1600..although 16 mono tracks would be nice as hell...the only shortcome i see in the d1200 is the fact that you have to bounce after 6 finished tracks..and thats a bummer if you're working on a crowded mix, cause you (at least i cant) never tell how a final mix will end up without hearing everything really together and being able to affect volume and panning...when u put those 6 six tracks together, its over....well not really cause u have the virtuals...but to me, nothing comes close to lots of mono tracks avaliable...

thats the shortcome to me..the other one would be that these machines sure do get hot fast and that the drum machine aint the most logical thing ever..

but thats about it...great machines all around and cristal sound.

you did the right choice...if you wanna read about it and fret a bit more ;), enjoy:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may04/articles/tascam2488.htm

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may01/articles/korgd1600.asp
 
If you think it sounds different or better, than it is. It may not be for the next person, but who cares about them?
Click to expand...

I think that's crap. No band / client has ever asked me to mix something so that only I like it. I'm in the service business. I'm trying to make other musicians sound great. In fact, many times I don't like what they ask me to do. The whole idea for recording a record is to allow others to hear the music. If it was only about one person than he could just play to himself all day long. He wouldn't need a recording.

The masses are stupid, but they can EASILY tell the difference between a Don Gilmore production / Andy Wallace mix and an ass clown Brandon Drury production/ Brandon Drury mix. Trying out high end preamps did nothing for me.

The whole goal of these forums (besides entertainment) is to improve our recordings through learning. Well, I didn't improve my recordings one bit using the fancy preamps. I don't think the music was any more effective with one mic pre or another.

In fact, we comped vocals together using parts recorded with different preamps. No one (including myself) noticed a difference in tone.

Brandon

I'm begining to think that I have something wrong with me because after recording/mixing over 600 songs I still dont' give a damn about preamps. Maybe I just suck.
 
Last edited:
Brandon...

We don't suck...or have bad ears...

...we're just starting to get the big picture, that's all. I think it's called experience.

mark4man
 
I am by no means a pro when it comes to recording, and If I had suddenly a $200,000 studio full of gear, I still wouldn't be a pro. I think realistically, unless you are going to devote a couple of decades of your life to learning the skill (or ANY skill) all you can hope for, is to not noticbly suck.

Lot's of people think different but most of them are not as good as they think, and again this goes for any skill.

Ok, having said that, I think that picking out the difference between a low-mid range preamp, and a mid-high end preamp is something most anyone can do IF you can A/B two samples.

But I think that the majority of us, us being home recorders or musicians or even music listeners can NOT listen to a song and tell what class of preamps are used. I think if you can mix a song properly, and can get a mix that is not muddy or distractingly lacking in any one area is much more important. Even more important, if it is something musically compelling, all the mix has to do is NOT SUCK. This is all about the music, folks. I don't think many non-pros are realistically going to record a CD for a band, and a major label is going to sign them, and just release it as is. Despite what most think, we are just recording demos. Hopefully NICE demos, but demos none the less. When it comes right down to that, I think skill and experience (or lack of) will come into play long before what pres I am using, and like it or not this is true for most of us out there.
 
BTW, (i posted this in the wrong section earlier, oops) there are some really nice comparisons available(pres, mics, op-amps) on www.thelisteningsessions.com . the new neve portico 5012 is there. among units by API, Sebaton, and others.

I think the neve may be in my future, nice sounding box.

teddy
 
Sorry Brandon, but I disagree. If you can't hear the difference between the preamps, than my statement still stands. I can hear the difference from the beginning of a session to the end of a session with the SAME preamps, mics, etc....

I also think it is really important to look at the context of my statement. Especially if you are going to take a quote from it. The original poster asked a question. It seemed to me that it was implied that the question concerned him, and not how to please all the bands. If I am buying a preamp, or a mic, or anything else specifically to do my own recordings, than my statement most certainly is true. I personally own a professional working studio. I do make what I consider compromises in some of my purchases in order to cater to my clients familiarities. However, when my clients come to me they do so because they like the decisions that I make and want those things on their album.

The real point that I was tyring to make in my last post though seems to have escaped you. My point was that "better" is subjective. What is better for you may not be better for me. When we are dealing with music EVERYTHING is subjective. My point was to make the decision for yourself and not rely on just information from other people. If you like the sound of the Mackie preamps better than the Soundcrafts, then no amount of Soundcraft hype should affect which one you buy.
 
Good components cost more money...caps, resistors etc...
Almost every good pre I have ever heard has transformers..cheap one's do not as they are very expensive (compared to electrically balanced junk)..
Good pre's use a bunch more current...24 to 64 volts regardless of the class (A or AB)...More current means a "quicker" and "more present" pre...
I have a Mackie 1402 and a Rane on the cheap end and they sound okay..
I have some old racked console modules (pm1000's, run on 44 volts)... a HEAVILY modified Rolls 220 (the mods cost more than the pre itself) and a hombrew API 312 (with transformers) and they blow away the prosumer stuff..If you can't hear the difference than another line of work is in order..can't be a good piano tuner if you are tone deaf :)..I still use the Mackie...as a headphone distribution amp/monitor mixer !

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top