What do you expect from your preamp?

[mikeyp62]

Because I'd need about 10 Pacificas.

I have a rather large drum kit.

The Symetrix is a pretty respected mid level pre, so I'm looking for something in that range.

I'm definitely going to save up for the big main vocal preamp, but my needs right now are to fill channels.

Then rob a bank and get 10 pacificas. I'll be at your studio every day with pizza.

Or get an API 3124. Four great pres at a mid-level price.

 

[PhilGood]

Then rob a bank and get 10 pacificas. I'll be at your studio every day with pizza.

Or get an API 3124. Four great pres at a mid-level price.

Ugh. I've had pizza 3 days this week.

I'm probably going to go jogging until midnight!

 

[Fishmed]

Well, I guess what I'm trying to ascertain is "What are the qualities a really good preamp possesses that are not typically found in less expensive pres? What are the traits? What does it do to the sound and what should I be looking for?".

Not to put too fine a point on it.

I would have to say “presence”; which to me is the depth or roundness it gives to the source that is being recorded. As you listen to the recordings, you feel like you can actually reach out and "grab" the instruments you are listening to. The lower ended mic pre's seem to appear flat with little to no depth. It is something you have to really experience for yourself.

 

[chessrock]

Well, I guess what I'm trying to ascertain is "What are the qualities a really good preamp possesses that are not typically found in less expensive pres? What are the traits? What does it do to the sound and what should I be looking for?".

Well, for starters, it shouldn't suck. Once you get past that, the rest is icing.

Don't expect miracles. You might hear some very subtle improvements in clarity, noise level, frequency response and overall smoothness.

Or you might not.

So much of this stuff depends on the rest of your signal chain, your recording abilities, and the context of how everything is used. But don't kid yourself in to thinking the mic pre is going to be some sort of holy grail or missing link in your signal chain that can push your recordings over the hump. It really doesn't work that way.

.

 

[RightOnMusic]

I would have to say “presence”; which to me is the depth or roundness it gives to the source that is being recorded. As you listen to the recordings, you feel like you can actually reach out and "grab" the instruments you are listening to. The lower ended mic pre's seem to appear flat with little to no depth. It is something you have to really experience for yourself.

exactly the experience i had last night plugging in that neve for the first time. for me, a good preamp allows every good quality of your mic and source to shine. lower end preamps can mask a lot of the good characteristics of the mic.

 

[Supercreep]

If I were the drummer you were I'd be looking into the four channels of API mentioned previously. You could cut through the crap, hang up your hat and be done. Maybe add a nice harware comp later on down the line for some interesting color.

 

[PhilGood]

Well, for starters, it shouldn't suck. Once you get past that, the rest is icing.

Don't expect miracles. You might hear some very subtle improvements in clarity, noise level, frequency response and overall smoothness.

Or you might not.

So much of this stuff depends on the rest of your signal chain, your recording abilities, and the context of how everything is used. But don't kid yourself in to thinking the mic pre is going to be some sort of holy grail or missing link in your signal chain that can push your recordings over the hump. It really doesn't work that way.

.

So what would you say the relationship in importance is?

mic/pre
90/10?
70/30?
50/50?

I mean, obviously the mic selection is most important, as well as placement, but what percentage does the pre add? Minimal, or catapulting?

 

[chessrock]

So what would you say the relationship in importance is?

mic/pre
90/10?
70/30?
50/50?

I mean, obviously the mic selection is most important, as well as placement, but what percentage does the pre add? Minimal, or catapulting?

Well, to the extent that literally everything is important ... everything your signal passes through and everything that transduces sound in some way shape or form ... is going to be important, it is hard to put a numerical value or ratio on something.

Again, to the extent that the mic pre "doesn't suck," then it plays a relatively small role from my experience. If you're using a mic pre that doesn't kick out enough phantom power, has no head room and imparts a 60-cycle hum on everything tracked through it, then just a simple step up to a mic pre that works and doesn't suck will make a huge improvement.

After that, it can be a lot of hair splitting. Let's assume you're a photographer. As a photographer, what ratio would you assign between the camera and quality of the lens? Would you say it's 90% camera and 10% lens? 95% camera and 5% lens? How about the film? Kodak or Fujinon?

I tend to be of the camp that assumes if the lens isn't cracked or dirty, etc., then I'm not necessarily going to sweat nickles over the brand name or presumed "quality" of said lens. Is it important? To the degree that "everything" is important if you want your pictures to be of the highest possible quality ... then yes, it is important. But in relation to the camera, the lighting, my experience as a photographer, etc. ... it certainly takes on a different degree of importance when put in context.

.

 

[mshilarious]

As a photographer, what ratio would you assign between the camera and quality of the lens? Would you say it's 90% camera and 10% lens? 95% camera and 5% lens? How about the film? Kodak or Fujinon?

I tend to be of the camp that assumes if the lens isn't cracked or dirty, etc., then I'm not necessarily going to sweat nickles over the brand name or presumed "quality" of said lens. Is it important? To the degree that "everything" is important if you want your pictures to be of the highest possible quality ... then yes, it is important. But in relation to the camera, the lighting, my experience as a photographer, etc. ... it certainly takes on a different degree of importance when put in context.

Dude, it's the opposite. The lens is far, far more important to image quality than the camera, at least assuming the cameras are of the same basic type (meaning 35mm, medium format, large format). Even so, I'm pretty sure a photographer would choose a sharp lens on a 35mm Pentax K1000 over a crap lens on an 8x10 camera.

Then there are the pinhole guys, but they are strange

On the other hand, lenses are like preamps in that it's fairly easy to test their objective performance. But then nobody tries to excuse away optical flaws in a lens by saying it adds "warmth" to a photo

There are filters for that

 

[Fishmed]

Dude, it's the opposite. The lens is far, far more important to image quality than the camera, at least assuming the cameras are of the same basic type (meaning 35mm, medium format, large format). Even so, I'm pretty sure a photographer would choose a sharp lens on a 35mm Pentax K1000 over a crap lens on an 8x10 camera.

Then there are the pinhole guys, but they are strange

On the other hand, lenses are like preamps in that it's fairly easy to test their objective performance. But then nobody tries to excuse away optical flaws in a lens by saying it adds "warmth" to a photo

There are filters for that

Then can it be said that you can take a cheap Kodak camera and get the same result as a HIGH END camera just by touching the picture up in Photoshop?

 

[mshilarious]

Then can it be said that you can take a cheap Kodak camera and get the same result as a HIGH END camera just by touching the picture up in Photoshop?

Most of the "cheap Kodak cameras" have built-in lenses which are often crap, so I don't agree with your analogy.

Traditionally, most photo students have learned on all-manual SLRs like the Pentax, using a basic 50 f/1.8 lens, on Kodak T-Max or some similar BW film, sort of the photo equivalent of an SM57 into a Tascam. It's possible to do gallery-quality work with that gear--and good darkroom technique.

 

[Fishmed]

Most of the "cheap Kodak cameras" have built-in lenses which are often crap, so I don't agree with your analogy.

Traditionally, most photo students have learned on all-manual SLRs like the Pentax, using a basic 50 f/1.8 lens, on Kodak T-Max or some similar BW film, sort of the photo equivalent of an SM57 into a Tascam. It's possible to do gallery-quality work with that gear--and good darkroom technique.

So are you basically saying to get close to professional quality, you have to start off with good gear, and no amount of software can be a substitute for it?

 

[Robert D]

Software can't put back detail that was never captured in the first place.

 

[mshilarious]

I don't think I was talking about software at all. But since you mentioned it, software can do all sorts of clever things. Doesn't mean you should spend all your money on plugs . . .

 

[Fishmed]

Software can't put back detail that was never captured in the first place.

Well said.

I don't think I was talking about software at all. But since you mentioned it, software can do all sorts of clever things. Doesn't mean you should spend all your money on plugs . . .

I was just using your analogy to demonstrate a different issue.

 

[hairylarry]

transparent and detailed

Phil,

I record a lot of acoustic guitar and I love my dmp2s. I even use one when I play live. I also have a Studio Projects VTB1 which I use with the tube dialed out. This is a very clean preamp with lots of gain which can be important with some mics.

So you can see I live in cheap preamp land. Still I have done a lot of a/b comparisons with mixer preamps, lo to hi transformers, and my fostex preamps. I almost always prefer the cheap standalone. My mics just have more clarity in the high end going through my dmp2s than not.

You are always using a preamp. If there was no preamp then you wouldn't have enough signal to record. Because of the economics most preamps built into other equipment just can't compare to preamps costing $80 to $100 per channel. I haven't used any high end $1000 per channel preamps but my guess is this.

When you go from a typical $5 or $10 preamp built into a mixer board or a digital recorder to a low end preamp like a dmp2 or dmp3 the difference is striking. a/b the same mics through both and you will never want to use the cheap builtins again.

When you go from a dmp3 or comparable preamp to really high end gear you can probably hear the difference if you have great monitors and a great listening room and you are recording great musicians playing in a great room and your ear is finely attuned to nuance.

Many people listening through their not so expensive monitors in their bedroom probably wouldn't hear much difference.

Since I can't afford a $1000 preamp I will probably never know if this is really correct. But this rationale does keep me happily using what I can afford.

There are many preamps in the $100 range that are not good and will not help you. But there are also some preamps in that range that are so obviously and immediately superior to anything less that you will want to use them always.

And they will really help with cheaper mics if the cheaper mics aren't junk. I know because that's all I've got.

Thanks,

Hairy Larry

 

[RightOnMusic]

Then can it be said that you can take a cheap Kodak camera and get the same result as a HIGH END camera just by touching the picture up in Photoshop?

is that like saying "we'll just fix that in the mix"?

 

[Innovations]

I am of the opinion that a crappy preamp can do worlds of hurt but that a good preamp can't add something that wasn't in the instrument/placement/mic, it can only hide it. If I hear a problem (other than not enough gain of course) my reaction is to look at the room/instrument/placement/mic first.

 

[RightOnMusic]

^Perfect.

end of thread.

 

[mshilarious]

^Perfect.

end of thread.

Except it's not your thread to end, and it's not a perfect response. For example, a transformer-balanced preamp will interact with a dynamic mic. A variable input impedance preamp can also do this. Therefore, by changing the load on the mic, sometimes in complex ways, you can change the mic's signal itself.

Unless you consider the mic's signal to be the unloaded signal, which is not a real world application.

Also, of course a preamp can add things that weren't in the mic signal. This is one reason people stick things like tubes and transformers in preamps. But then mics can have circuits too, sometimes with tubes and transformers, sometimes not.

There is nothing sacred about the division of the circuit between mic and preamp, except for the need to avoid signal problems in transmission through a suitably long mic cable. It is possible to design a mic that only needs power, and spits out a line level signal. It is also possible to rip out the transformer from a dynamic mic, and become even more reliant on a preamp for gain.

Thus, the opinion that a microphone can be designed to create various sorts of signal distortions (mostly, but not entirely, a result of the transducer itself), but a preamp can only aspire to be a straight wire with gain is an inappropriately limited view of a system.