Use all same pre-amps for recording "glue" or different pres for "flavor"

[centurymantra]

Use all same pre-amps for recording "glue" or different pres for "flavor"

I've encountered a bit of discussion regarding the potential benefits of using the same pre-amp for the majority of the tracks in a recording as a means of providing "glue" to the recording and gaining a cohesive sound. Up until recently I would have steered towards the notion of using a variety of pre-amps for a wide range of flavors in the sonic palette, but some recent observations have led me to re-think this idea. I'd be interested in hearing some input and opinions from folks on this forum about this topic.

 

[ds21]

I know this sound like a pat answer but, as is always the case, it depends on the song, type of music, what sounds best togather, what your going for... I take it your talking more about instrument as opposed to vocals. Some times the "best sounding" pre-amp is not right for the instrument to sit in the mix, where another instrument will sound great with nothing else, even say... the two instruments are the same acoustic guitar put playing different parts.

out of curiosity what recent observations are you talking about?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I generally agree with what ds21 said, but I'd spin just a bit differently: look at it from the perspective of the "production".

When tracking a song, theoretically the best way to start out is with an idea in your head ("your" in this case being the person with the task closest to the title of "producer") of what you want the final product to sound like. This includes not only a general idea of the flavor of the mix, but also at least some - if not always a total - idea what what kind of sound you want from each instrument. It's the same fore-thinking that we all (hopefully) use in choosing which microphones and what kind of placement to use for them. Do you want to use your favorite LDC just off the sound hole of the acoustic guitar to get that warm, thick sound, or do you want or need the guitar a few floors up in the spectral skyscraper so you're thinking of throwing that dual SDC a few frets up the fingerboard?

I see little reason not to extend that kind of planning to the preamps; choose the one that not only seems to work "best" with the mic you chose, but one that will help deliver the kind of sound you have in mind. In such a case you are obviously choosing the proper preamp for each track and not choosing a universal preamp to provide a sonic "glue" to the mix.

And actually that last phrase in that last paragraph also make me think of the following: "gluing" should, IMHumbleO anyway, generally be saved for later in the process like towards the end of the mixing phase. There may be exceptions to that which I'm not thinking of right now; but off the top of my head, that seems to be when I usually work on that, because it's not until you fit the pieces together that you can really see just what kind of and how much glue the mix may need - if any.

Of course, on the one hand, one needs to have a substantial enough mic locker and preamp inventory to have the luxury of having such flexibility in the tracking setup, and many on this forum won't have that luxury. But I think the theory of "track to get the best out of the instrument and worry about gluing later on" is a good one to work with.

Just one guy's opinion,

G.

 

[Farview]

I always thought of the 'glue' that holds a track together as all of the instruments taking up their own sonic space with just enough overlap to meld one instrument into the next. If you use the same preamp for everything, certain frequencies tend to build up. That will tend to make things fight instead of lay evenly together.

 

[FALKEN]

i think more preamps = more glue (when used tastefully, as always)

 

[EVT]

I think once you use your preamps for different things, you become familiar with the sounds you are getting from them. It's kind of the same as using a specific keyboard sound, a certain guitar, effects, mics, mic placement.

I have a safesound p1and a sebatron vmp-2000 and I have found that I personally like the vocals and bass through the safesound, and the keyboards and drum machines through the sebatron, but I'm also still experimenting with my mic's and placement. I have been reamping through my radial jdi into my blues jr. amp with a shure sm57 powered by the safesound with the mic right up to the grill angled a bit and blending that with the direct track of the guitar which was run through the sebatron which sounds really great.

There are many and different elements involved. One thing I don't have the luxury of having is an nicely set up room (acoustically) a vocal booth or anything, but I try my best to get a good sound with the space I have.

Even when messing around with my drum machines, certain drum machines sound great together because they have a different kind of sound. And I know
which one to use when I want a specific kind of sound. Now if only I could find a real drummer!
evt

 

[Joseph Hanna]

If you use the same preamp for everything, certain frequencies tend to build up. That will tend to make things fight instead of lay evenly together.

Yea I've heard this kinda comment popping up recently. Keeping in mind the array of fantasitic mic pre's we're talking about I guess on some level particularly with EXTREMELY poor mic pre's and EXTREMELY high track count in an EXTREMELY well designed and tuned room with an engineer with good ears might begin to pick up on some accumulating frequency anomalies.

In a basement studio with all the accompanying problems and misgivings........just NEVER gonna notice.

Here comes the latest wives tale.

 

[Farview]

It happens to me with my Amek 9098. If I use it on too may things, I can get a build up of lower mids. Mackie boards are good for this as well, you end up with an overly bright, screechy mix if you aren't careful. The same thing happens if you record everything with a 57.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

It happens to me with my Amek 9098. If I use it on too may things, I can get a build up of lower mids. Mackie boards are good for this as well, you end up with an overly bright, screechy mix if you aren't careful. The same thing happens if you record everything with a 57.

I own a 9098. I've used it on endless projects. Sorry but this is just plain bad information.

If there is some kind of buildup of low mid frequency's in your sessions I'd submit you look in a thousand places before you start to assign the problem to the 9098.

It was common place in the 60's, 70's, 80's and mid 90"s to use large format consoles with identical pre's. Frequency "buildup" from those pre's was NEVER a significant problem.

jh

 

[Farview]

I own a 9098. I've used it on endless projects. Sorry but this is just plain bad information.

If there is some kind of buildup of low mid frequency's in your sessions I'd submit you look in a thousand places before you start to assign the problem to the 9098.

It was common place in the 60's, 70's, 80's and mid 90"s to use large format consoles with identical pre's. Frequency "buildup" from those pre's was NEVER a significant problem.

jh

Alright, let's take this one step at a time.
I'm sure you would agree that different preamps sound different. Why do you think that is?

If you do a song from start to finish (record and mix) on a Mackie 8 bus and do the same thing on a vintage Neve console, the two versions of the song sound the same? You seem intelligent, so I will assume your answer is no.

I would think that the Mackie version would be thinner and kind of grainy in the highs compared to the Neve version. Why do you think that is?

It's true that this build up isn't much of a problem with good preamps because it is a pleasing sound, but try to do an album using nothing but those $99 Bellari tube preamps and tell me that the harsh, scratchy crunch doesn't seem to get worse with every track you add to the song.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I would think that the Mackie version would be thinner and kind of grainy in the highs compared to the Neve version. Why do you think that is?

From experience in mixing on a Mackie and doing the same mix on a Sony Baby Oxford, I can attest to this!

I certainly could make the Mackie work for me, but it does sound thinner and grainier than boards of higher calibre.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

Alright, let's take this one step at a time.
I'm sure you would agree that different preamps sound different. Why do you think that is?

That's rhetorical right?

You seem intelligent,

This certainly has been a heated subject of debate for many years now. My momma thinks so.

I would think that the Mackie version would be thinner and kind of grainy in the highs compared to the Neve version. Why do you think that is?

I don't. The knee jerk reaction in this business has always been to romance the stone..or in this case the Neve. It's CLEARLY not that Neve by spec and design is a bad pre amp. Truth be told I've work with various incarnations of Neve stuff and they can be lovely. Are they "better" than a Mackie VLZ?? Not by the romantic leaps and bounds that most here would have you believe. Would I rather have some vintage Neve than a 1202VLZ...well sure but that falls under the " obviously Mr Obvious" category. Finally I'd hesitate to call the Mackie pre's thin......they are NOT and this is were a lot of young engineers start falling into the trap of "my mix is thin therefore I better hurry up and buy a new pre-amp cause my Mackie sucks.

If you do a song from start to finish (record and mix) on a Mackie 8 bus and do the same thing on a vintage Neve console, the two versions of the song sound the same?

If I've done my job, yes, the two version would sound the same.

It's true that this build up isn't much of a problem with good preamps because it is a pleasing sound, but try to do an album using nothing but those $99 Bellari tube preamps and tell me that the harsh, scratchy crunch doesn't seem to get worse with every track you add to the song.

It has nothing to do with Bellari or $99.00. Of course...OF COURSE if you are recording harsh, scratchy crunch over and over the end result will be just that.


Look..... I've said it over and over. I see far too many people convinced beyond any reasonable argument if they chase that carrot (some sort of purchase) dangling in front of them long enough their abilities and mixes will improve. There's not that many rooms,maybe some but not that many, here that can illuminate the differences between major brand mic pre's. If you've got low mid build up in your mixes...YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG and a NEVE pre-amp is NOT gonna fix it.

 

[Farview]

Look..... I've said it over and over. I see far too many people convinced beyond any reasonable argument if they chase that carrot (some sort of purchase) dangling in front of them long enough their abilities and mixes will improve. There's not that many rooms,maybe some but not that many, here that can illuminate the differences between major brand mic pre's. If you've got low mid build up in your mixes...YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG and a NEVE pre-amp is NOT gonna fix it.

I'm not arguing that nothing can be done about it. That lower mid thing is easily eq'd away in the instruments that don't require it. I am also not chasing after any carrot. I do think That using more preamps, ones that are matched with the source is a better idea than using the same pre for everything and trying to EQ your way out of the corner you have put yourself in. And no, I'm not afraid of EQ. Back when I was using a Mackie, there was always something in almost every track around 3k to 6k that I would want to take out. So there went half (the good half) of my parametrics to make up for the sound of the mic preamps.

Even if it isn't a budget preamp, just one that is really bright. If you use it on everything, you will have to fight the brightness on some of the instruments. It is a silly position to put yourself in when you don't have to.

I think I could tell the difference between a Mackie preamp and a 9098 in my room. Hell, I can tell the difference between my modified Ghost channel strips and the stock ones. Or the Langevin and the 9098. They really aren't close.

 

[chessrock]

I really wish it was just a matter of switching to a different mic pre, and then having all my mixing problems solved.

The more experience you get, and the more often you do some of this stuff, the more painfully obvious it becomes to you that there just are no easy work-arounds to fitting different tones and sources, etc. in a mix. No magic mic pres that are going to make your life any easier. If a mic needs to be moved over a few inches, then get up off your ass and move it. If it needs to be switched out for something more appropriate, then switch it out.

If the drumb needs tuning, the amp needs tweaking, the strings need changing, or the room needs treating ... your mic pre isn't going to help ya any. It's just going to sit there with it's big gain knob and mock you.

 

[Farview]

I really wish it was just a matter of switching to a different mic pre, and then having all my mixing problems solved.

The more experience you get, and the more often you do some of this stuff, the more painfully obvious it becomes to you that there just are no easy work-arounds to fitting different tones and sources, etc. in a mix. No magic mic pres that are going to make your life any easier. If a mic needs to be moved over a few inches, then get up off your ass and move it. If it needs to be switched out for something more appropriate, then switch it out.

If the drumb needs tuning, the amp needs tweaking, the strings need changing, or the room needs treating ... your mic pre isn't going to help ya any. It's just going to sit there with it's big gain knob and mock you.

I'm not saying that any one mic pre is the answer to all of life's ills. I'm saying that using the same pre on everything will tend to give everything the same type of color. We have been focusing on preamps in this discussion, but it would be the same for mics. If you mic everything with a 57, everything will have that '57 sound. It is not a commentary on how wonderful the 57 is, it is that it has a sound and it imparts that sound on what ever passes through it.

If you run every instrument through the same signal chain (mic, mic pre, converter), no matter how well you place the mic, all the instruments will be colored the same way.

I must not be explaining myself very well.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

I do think That using more preamps, ones that are matched with the source is a better idea than using the same pre for everything

Yes of course in a perfect world that goes without saying.

Back when I was using a Mackie, there was always something in almost every track around 3k to 6k that I would want to take out.

3k to 6k is a massive leap. That's a whole lotta problem. Any contemporary piece of equipment that's consistently whacked (in any way) between 3k and 6k is......broke

Even if it isn't a budget preamp, just one that is really bright. If you use it on everything, you will have to fight the brightness on some of the instruments.

So your suggesting that if I recorded 4 vastly different sources..say some type of stringed instrument, a bass instrument, a percussion instrument and a vocal, of course using the proper choice of mic's, proper gain stage and proper mic placement all in a stellar room you noticed a significant difference between the Mackie VLZ and a 9098? That there would be something bugging you between 3k and 6k?

It is a silly position to put yourself in when you don't have to.

Obviously I'm not promoting that anyone put themslves in a silly position.....except for that one girl I keep seeing at Starbucks. I'm pretty sure she'd look good in a silly position however....

Through it all you've missed my point. I'm not advocating Mackie over Neve or Neve over Grace or DBX over Avalon or black faced Adats over silver or tubes over models or Les Pauls over Strats....cause after all there just tools. If you got the beans by all means buy what makes you mix or play(perceived or otherwise) best. I've done it and by gosh I'll do it again. What I am concerned/frustrated with is that there's a whole group of less experienced folks here and elsewhere that buy into the VAST amount of mis-conceptions these forums promote. If you learn how to make the most out of what you have your mixes will sound better...there simply is NO disputing that fact although I sure someone here will try.

I'd love to see those less experienced here grab onto and firmly embrace the concept that "they" are the genious that makes things sound fantastic not Rupert Neve. I'd like to see those same folks less inclined to RACE for the Sweetwater catalog everytime someone yells pre-amp or compressor or 96K or Soundblaster. Just for one year I'd like to throw away all the Mac vs PC et al wars and see what we can collectively create. After all it's about talent and experimentationa and sound and the wonderful creation there in...Not NEVE pre-amps

 

[chessrock]

I'm saying that using the same pre on everything will tend to give everything the same type of color. We have been focusing on preamps in this discussion, but it would be the same for mics. If you mic everything with a 57, everything will have that '57 sound. It is not a commentary on how wonderful the 57 is, it is that it has a sound and it imparts that sound on what ever passes through it.

I can buy that. But only to the extent that you're using a very colored mic pre, and that it is used deliberately for a chosen effect. Like if you were to use a Bellari Tube pre on everything, then yea, your mix should have a certain sound imparted on it, for sure. It might even be a cool sound, depending on the style of music and the context.

But to put another spin on your microphone analogy, let's assume that, instead of a 57, you use an Earthworks. It changes the whole complexion of things. There should be no significant frequency bumps / dips or odd distortions to accumulate in such a scenario.

Now let's take it further and assume we use the 57 on certain things and the Earthworks on others. The vast difference in sonic character between the two mics will still offset any mic pre differences by a long shot. I'll guarantee you that even if you patch the Earthworks through the Bellari and the 57 through a Hardy ... that I can still pick out the Earthworks track from the 57 track in less than a heartbeat. It's still a much more dramatic difference in tone shades, and will do far more to distinguish the two tracks.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

If you run every instrument through the same signal chain (mic, mic pre, converter), no matter how well you place the mic, all the instruments will be colored the same way.

I must not be explaining myself very well.

No Jason that's just NOT true. Listen to Queen's "Night at the Opera" and see if you can detect the annoying buildup and sonic imprint of having used the same mic pre's. Years ago, during my first intership, we often had long discussion about mic's and their proper placement. I don't EVER recall a discussion about the limitations of the NEVE pre amps

Chessrock is beyond a shadow of a doubt correct. The proper mic palcement, the proper mic, the proper room, the proper guitar player, the proper engineering choices all have vastly more sonic impact than the seeming endless dribble about mic pre's.

 

[xstatic]

There seem to be a few points misinterpreted here. At least as far as I can tell from reading this thread. First, I agree that the repeated use of certain preamps especially can create a buildup which requires some sort of treatment. If I record every track in a song on Neve preamps, I will most likely be doing some eqing in my individual tracks between 100 and 400 hz. If I record them all on a Mackie I will probably have to go back and add a lot of high frequencies in order to counter the mic placement I had to use to keep the Mackie from reproducing any high frequencies to begin with. I do however find the 9098 to be a bad example of this phenomenon. It is one of the preamps that in general does not have this problem due to the fact that it is a fairly neutral sounding preamp. The problem discussed here seems to be if you are constantly using the same preamp that already has a dramatic sonic imprint. How we got to the whole argument about whether mics or pre's make a bigger difference is beyond me. Many people have used consoles for repeated tracks without problem. However, many of those people who used those consoles also used some outboard preamps (which defeats that whole argument for the sake of this thread), or also EQ'ed some of those tracks during mixdown, which once again applies to this thread. In general, if you were to use the same mic on every track you record, it would impart a lot of the same sonic properties to a mix. This may be a good thing, it may not. In fact, mic's do have their own sound, for good or bad. What you love about one mic may become a problem if that same characteristic were applied to EVERY track on a mix.

In the end, I think that having more preamps does increase the capabilities of a mix, just like having more than one mic does. In general, I prefer to match the every source to whatever mic AND preamp I think will fit the bill properly. Rarely is that the same mic or pre for every track on a song therefore for me having different preamps (since that's what this post is actually about) is what adds the glue to a mix. However, it of course is not necessary, but just another tool in my toolbox to assist me in my task. I do also believe, just like Joseph has stated, that these forums often leave the worng idea in newbies minds. The tools that we get as engineers are only as good as those people behind them who are driving them. I can make much better use out of my Distressor now than I could have 8 years ago. In fact, 8 years ago it may have hindered my mixes

 

[Farview]

No Jason that's just NOT true. Listen to Queen's "Night at the Opera" and see if you can detect the annoying buildup and sonic imprint of having used the same mic pre's. Years ago, during my first intership, we often had long discussion about mic's and their proper placement. I don't EVER recall a discussion about the limitations of the NEVE pre amps

I'm sure that there was some eq'ing going on on the queen album. If you have great preamps, it isn't a limitation. If you have crappy ones it is.

Chessrock is beyond a shadow of a doubt correct. The proper mic palcement, the proper mic, the proper room, the proper guitar player, the proper engineering choices all have vastly more sonic impact than the seeming endless dribble about mic pre's.

I completely agree.