What freakin' pre?

SonicAlbert said:
Some preamps are sufficiently robust to handle line level signals, like my DAV BG-1. I can run full line-level mixes through it (with careful setting of levels), and have done so on commercial projects.
Click to expand...

If you're running a frakin' balanced, line-level signal in to a freakin' mic-level input ... I normally wouldn't advocate it without using a freakin' DI box or similar transformer. Not a good idea, and I wouldn't do it with any sort of freakin' commercial project, but I've heard stranger freakin' things.

.
 
Last edited:
chessrock said:
If you're running a balanced, line-level signal in to a mic-level input ... I normally wouldn't advocate it without using a DI box or similar transformer. Not a good idea, and I highly doubt it would be for any type of commercial project, but I've heard stranger things.

.
Click to expand...
Not one freak....sigh
 
chessrock said:
If you're running a frakin' balanced, line-level signal in to a freakin' mic-level input ... I normally wouldn't advocate it without using a freakin' DI box or similar transformer. Not a good idea, and I wouldn't do it with any sort of freakin' commercial project, but I've heard stranger freakin' things.

.
Click to expand...

I do some remote recording with a Tascam 788 and a Studio Projects SP828 preamp. The 788 has "preamps", but they are balanced 1/4" inputs and no phantom power, thus the SP828 on the front end. Each channel on the Tascam has a gain knob going from "line" to "mic".

I often use some Beyer ribbon mics, which the SP828 can usually power just fine. But I have also done it with added gain from the Tascam on the signal coming in from the SP828. Essentially, I have two preamps in series here, no?

If the gain gets too high on the SP828 and it becomes noisy, I can back it off and make it up on the Tascam and have less noise with tons of gain. I've never had a problem doing this. I know it's goofy, but it works.
 
800 bucks will get you a nice V72 or V72a unracked. Get schematics to do a simple pigtail. You then have a great preamp that will hold value. And of course sound great too!
 
chessrock said:
If you're running a frakin' balanced, line-level signal in to a freakin' mic-level input ... I normally wouldn't advocate it without using a freakin' DI box or similar transformer. Not a good idea, and I wouldn't do it with any sort of freakin' commercial project, but I've heard stranger freakin' things.
Click to expand...

I'll try things just to see if it sounds good, sometimes crazy things. This is why I'm such an advocate of saying that you have to actually hear something before you can make a "yea or nay" comment on it. Looking at a parts list or reading posts and drawing conclusions from that really will not tell you the whole story.

My recording engineer is used to me wanting to try different things out. So we often patch gear in just to hear what it does. What works or doesn't work is not always what one would expect. I have no problem suggesting something and then saying "that sucks" as soon as I hear it, but you can be surprised by experimenting this way.

The BG-1 is capable of handling some high levels (for a mic preamp) and depending on the music, it can add a bigness and punchiness to the tracks. Hearing is believing.
 
Sonic, what you're talking about isn't being daring or experimentive. It's just flawed technique. You're not Joe Meek or Phil Specter or anything, so get over it.

.
 
Last edited:
fretwire3d said:
I've been researching and planing and trying things out and i have settled on an sm7 and a DBX 160 for vocals... and some sort of pre.

I have nuendo 3 and a presonus firepod. I want something with a lot of tube flavor and a very warm sound and as many options as possible. Also, i want it to be able to overdrive the vocals as well as have tons of clean headroom.

Thanks!

-Nathan
Click to expand...

don't ,mean to be a jerk, but why the DBX 160? How about something a little more flexible like the RNC? OR, how about no compressor at all? If you get a decent pre you might be able to get by without a comp.

Anyway, I like my Great River and my RNP... quite frankly, I think if I could only have one I would choose the RNP and add a RNLA to it. That is my favorite vocal chain for my voice and I think that the RNP does a great job with the SM7.

Good luck!

Jim
 
jdier said:
don't ,mean to be a jerk, but why the DBX 160? How about something a little more flexible like the RNC? OR, how about no compressor at all? If you get a decent pre you might be able to get by without a comp.

Anyway, I like my Great River and my RNP... quite frankly, I think if I could only have one I would choose the RNP and add a RNLA to it. That is my favorite vocal chain for my voice and I think that the RNP does a great job with the SM7.

Good luck!

Jim
Click to expand...
Disagree, the DBX is a great comp and sounds very nice on a lot of applications and situations. ( Hope I read that right)
 
Big Kenny said:
Disagree, the DBX is a great comp and sounds very nice on a lot of applications and situations. ( Hope I read that right)
Click to expand...
i agree with big k-- i've had a couple of 160x's and the rnc and preferred the 160x's (not subtle, but not meant to be) for vocals. plus, if he's talking about a 160 vu (which i suspect he's not), then that's a whole different animal.
 
jdier said:
don't ,mean to be a jerk, but why the DBX 160? How about something a little more flexible like the RNC? OR, how about no compressor at all? If you get a decent pre you might be able to get by without a comp.

Anyway, I like my Great River and my RNP... quite frankly, I think if I could only have one I would choose the RNP and add a RNLA to it. That is my favorite vocal chain for my voice and I think that the RNP does a great job with the SM7.

Good luck!

Jim
Click to expand...

Preferences aside, i find the DBX 160 to be much more "flexible" than the RNC. The RNC does what it does and does it fairly well, but it's a bit of a one trick pony where the DBX 160 seems to offer a wider variance in character.
 
chessrock said:
Sonic, what you're talking about isn't being daring or experimentive. It's just flawed technique. You're not Joe Meek or Phil Specter or anything, so get over it.
Click to expand...

You must be bitter about something, because I didn't deserve that remark.

It's not flawed technique, it's using multiple techniques to achieve a sound. A lot of mix engineers put mixes through preamps, it just has to be done right. You simply cannot say it is right or wrong without hearing it, and that's the same issue as dissing a preamp you've never heard because of a chip it uses.

I don't want to be Joe Meek or Phil Spector, and never have. I have nothing to get over--I am a guy doing what he loves every day, making a living at what he loves, and working with great people. I feel privileged and blessed to have this opportunity in life. I don't want to be anybody but me.

Back to compressors, I like DBX 160X's better than the FMR compressors too. I'm not crazy about the current cheaper DBX lines, but their older 160X/XT's, and the vintage 166's are pretty good in my opinion. As far as the more affordable units.
 
SonicAlbert said:
You must be bitter about something, because I didn't deserve that remark.

It's not flawed technique, it's using multiple techniques to achieve a sound. A lot of mix engineers put mixes through preamps, it just has to be done right. You simply cannot say it is right or wrong without hearing it, and that's the same issue as dissing a preamp you've never heard because of a chip it uses.
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus Christ. Now look who's bitter. It appears someone still hasn't gotten over some sore feelings over an entirely different thread about some other mic pre. :D (And I don't recall anyone ever "dissing" any "chips," so you're on your own on that one).

And I don't know of any good mix engineers who put their mixes through mic pres. I know plenty that put mics through mic pres. :D But any sane and rational mix engineer worth his salt should understand that, aside from the whole spirit of experimentation, there comes a time when there are right and wrong ways of doing certain things ... and this is one of them. If you want to achieve a certain effect, there are better ways of going about it.

.
 
Chess is right on one point.... "any sane and rational mix engineer worth his salt should understand that, aside from the whole spirit of experimentation, there comes a time when there are right and wrong ways of doing certain things "

Too bad this one isn't one of those things. I would do your best to ignore him Albert. He is wrong, he knows it, and just wants to stir the pot.
 
xstatic said:
Too bad this one isn't one of those things. I would do your best to ignore him Albert. He is wrong, he knows it, and just wants to stir the pot.
Click to expand...

So you mean to tell me, Xtatic, that you find it to be prudent and common practice to run cetain elements of a mix; i.e. individual tracks, submixes, buses, etc. at line level through a transparent / solid state mic pre as a means of enhancing/improving or otherwise creating a worthwhile effect to the audio?

I'm done criticizing at this point. Now, you simply have my curiosity. If I'm completely wrong and off-base on this, then I'll gladly apologize to Sonic and to anyone else bothering to read this thread. -- If you can point out some common situations as to where this is commonly practiced, and in what ways this contributes positively to the final product.

.
 
It actually is common practice to run elements of a mix or even a whole mix back through a preamp if that preamp contributes something desiravble to the mix. Its a very objective thing deciding what sound you are after and what equipment or combination thereoif and settings whill acheive that for you. I do agree that to me it wiould seem a little odd to run stuff back out through a really clean or neutral preamp, but the fact that it may or may not be solid state would make no difference to me. Running a mix back out through Chandler, Neve, Trident pre's etc... do have certain aspects that may be desirable. I like running my mixes back through my console. That however is purely because when I am treating my 2 track mix I like the EQ on my desk much better than the software I have.
 
one of tchad blake's signature tricks is running a drum submix through a sansamp and he's done pretty well for himself. thinking outside the box can be a good thing. if the art/practice of recording becomes bound by inflexible rules (other than down blow-up/or fry any equipment and/or start a fire), that would suck.
 
Chessrock, if it sounded worse after being put through the preamp, I would have taken the preamp off. I really don't care either way. But it sounded better, and I wasn't the only one who thought so. So the preamp stayed, *on that particular project*. It's not my common practice to do that, by the way, but I will experiment with things I read about other engineers doing.

Also, the BG-1 has a very specific sonic character. It's not straight wire with gain, there's a definite sound there--clean but not neutral. Transparent, but also big and warm. So putting a mix through it is not just like turning up the volume.

I'd tried all sorts of tube gear on my mixes to get the sound I was looking for, but none of the tube gear I used did it for me. I bought gear like the Manley VariMu among others, but was overall disappointed. Surprisingly enough to me, the BG-1 actually got me the sound.

I do use it as a preamp too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top