What's more important...mic or preamp?

[darrin_h2000]

I got the joke about the harp, but refrained from a Any suggestions from the list of tube pre's based on that banner link Darrin_h2000? Or anyone else? Behringer and Avalon (etc) need no introduction, but some of thos I have never had any experience with.

Yeah...the Avalon Model that the line6 toneport will give you is great...and for the money you cannot beat it.

 

[yrdbrd]

The fact that no one ever agrees on this "chicken or egg" type question proves once and for all that the real answer is............ C (both are equally important). Oh and throw in converters and room treatment and the question really becomes dizzying. Sort of like complex algebra solving 4 equations with 4 unknowns. Man, don't even go there.

which came first the chicken or the egg?
It has to be the chicken... 'cause eggs can't c u m

preformance is everything

Peace

 

[dintymoore]

Here's my take:

The most important thing is the singer, then the mic, then the pre... it all starts at the source.

I have a Stephen Paul modded U87 and a Jensen Twin Servo 990 mic pre, neither are cheap.

I've used the mic with a Presonus El Cheapo $100 mic pre and it still sounded like the same mic overall and I could use the results.

I've used cheap mics like an SM57 with the Jensen pre and I didn't like it for lead vocals.

Without a good mic, you aren't capturing the sound right at the very first.

But most important is actually the singer.

 

[fat_fleet]

y'know, i'm interested in this because i've never owned or used a mic pre for my own personal recordings. granted i generally don't record professionally.
am i missing out on something that would greatly "enhance my sound"?
i'm guessing that using a pre would give me the option to add gain and EQing?
every home recording unit i've ever used has been capable of giving me a more than sufficient input signal from any mic i've ever used and most offer me EQing options so what exactly am i missing out on?

also i've heard people sing the praises of this thing.
i know some of you have probably used it. it's described as a mic pre and A/D converter. if i'm just recording at home on a little digital recorder thingy, is there any reason for me to own one of these? i'm guessing i would not use it's A/D conversion features unless i'm doing software-based computer recording?
would something like this improve my life in any way?

please educate...

 

[Fishmed]

Here's my take:

The most important thing is the singer, then the mic, then the pre... it all starts at the source.

I have a Stephen Paul modded U87 and a Jensen Twin Servo 990 mic pre, neither are cheap.

I've used the mic with a Presonus El Cheapo $100 mic pre and it still sounded like the same mic overall and I could use the results.

I've used cheap mics like an SM57 with the Jensen pre and I didn't like it for lead vocals.

Without a good mic, you aren't capturing the sound right at the very first.

But most important is actually the singer.

Threads like this, the song, performer, and instrument always trump any of the recording gear.

How does multiple tracks (10+) of that Presonus stackup to the same number of tracks with the 990 pre using the same mics?

 

[dintymoore]

... How does multiple tracks (10+) of that Presonus stackup to the same number of tracks with the 990 pre using the same mics?

Truthfully I never tried it, because I usually use MIDI and maybe 1 or 2 audio tracks. Most songs I do are maybe 6 tracks.

I'm not going to say that the Presonus is anywhere near the Jensen, it's not... the Presonus is a "tool to get by with" and the Jensen is John's masterpiece.

My guess is that with the Jensen you'd have much more clarity and definition if you recorded 10 tracks, there'd be something wrong if there wasn't, since the Jensen is $2400 ($4,800 loaded w/4 pre's) and the Presonus is about a bill. Each is well worth the price, to me.

Kia vs Rolls Royce about sums it up, and if you need some toilet paper at the store the Kia will get you there.

 

[Fishmed]

Truthfully I never tried it, because I usually use MIDI and maybe 1 or 2 audio tracks. Most songs I do are maybe 6 tracks.

I'm not going to say that the Presonus is anywhere near the Jensen, it's not... the Presonus is a "tool to get by with" and the Jensen is John's masterpiece.

My guess is that with the Jensen you'd have much more clarity and definition if you recorded 10 tracks, there'd be something wrong if there wasn't, since the Jensen is $2400 ($4,800 loaded w/4 pre's) and the Presonus is about a bill. Each is well worth the price, to me.

No problem. But you are right, if you are just using a handful of audio tracks the lesser pre would be fine in many cases.

Kia vs Rolls Royce about sums it up, and if you need some toilet paper at the store the Kia will get you there.

If you are getting paid to chauffeur paying clients around, which car would allow you to charge more? If it is just for personal transportation, then a Kia or Yugo would be just fine.

 

[darrin_h2000]

And dont think that even though you are driving a KIA to get your toilet paper that you arent leaving any skidmarks.

 

[dintymoore]

And dont think that even though you are driving a KIA to get your toilet paper that you arent leaving any skidmarks.

The Presonus does have a funny smell I can't quite place...

 

[Todzilla]

I got a Neumann U89 in the late 80s. I used it with my Fostex and Mackie board pre-amps. It sounded fantastic. I upgraded to a Demeter preamp in the mid-90s and the Neumann sounded a little bit better. Recently, I built some Neve and API clones from Seventh Circle Audio and the sound is now officially sublime.

But I found the biggest leap in quality - no question about it - was the mic itself. The preamps are just icing on the cake.

 

[PhilGood]

Which modules did you build?

 

[dkelley]

I just want to say, imho, the order of priority is:

performer/performance
instrument
skill of producer + tracking and mixing engineer(s)
mic positioning
room sound
compressor settings
microphone
compressor types used
mic preamp
everything else (monitoring setup and so on)

 

[samth3mancgp]

I got a Neumann U89 in the late 80s. I used it with my Fostex and Mackie board pre-amps. It sounded fantastic. I upgraded to a Demeter preamp in the mid-90s and the Neumann sounded a little bit better. Recently, I built some Neve and API clones from Seventh Circle Audio and the sound is now officially sublime.

But I found the biggest leap in quality - no question about it - was the mic itself. The preamps are just icing on the cake.

I'm thinking about getting some 7th circle stuff. You go the N72 and A12 model? They look like they are fabulous pres.

 

[coleBoom]

Just for the fun (and rigor) of it, lets say the answer to the question "What's more important the mic or the preamp" must not be answered through the use of analogy, parable or anecdote and has to be answered using electrical engineering, acoustical and / or musical terms.

I'd really like to read some convincing arguments supporting one proposition or the other - but arguments grounded in and expressed through the language of the recording arts - be it electronic, acoustical or musical. Think of yourself applying to work at Abbey Road in 1959 and the question (or similar) was asked of you. Yeah I know the preamps used by the BBC were pretty much what were in the consoles. The point I'm trying to make is the BBC and perhaps Bill Putnam on the West Coast epitomized the highest standards of audio engineering excellence. These people could communicate audio engineering problems and solutions without resorting to analogy.

They could speak directly in the language of audio engineering - electronics, acoustics and musicology. With this in mind, what is more important - the microphone or the preamplifier?

OK how about this..
Since electronics got started it has always been the Mechanical part which was the most likely to cause distortion.

Amplifiers (face it guys thats is what a preamp is..) hardly even have a measurable distortion when compared to speakers and mics.

Period.

There is a preamp in every condenser MIC.. so how about we say.... I don't know... Which amp you talking about the one in the mic or the preamp, or are we concerned with the DAC's most.

Her is the thing.. If you love that old 60's and 70's sound which came from electronics which distorted slightly in nice pleasant ways... Go for expensive preamps and actually buy ones that were made back then...

If you want clean (I believe many of you call it sterile) sound then buy any modern pre amp..

There are differences in the more modern stuff. The biggest of which are noticeable to the average ear only when the pre is turned up way to far...

I am probably going to buy a high end PRE After I get the mics I want. When I do I will be looking for one with 70 db of gain and a variable input impedance..

 

[MichaelJoly]

You know, I'd forgotten about the challenge I issued - to convincingly prove why either the microphone or preamp is more important by using electrical, mechanical and / or musical terms without using analogy or parable.

I believe this is increasingly difficult for recordists to do, because so few actually have an engineering education with core studies in electrical, mechanical and musical systems. There are very few trained "Tonmeisters" about.

Consequently there are lots of "recording engineers" around who don't have a firm grasp of electrical, mechanical and musical systems and the accepted terminology used to describe the interactions within and amongst those disciplines - most specifically, why the microphone is clearly orders of magnitude more important than any preamp.

This fact can easily be demonstrated by comparing microphone polar plots along with room node analysis against frequency response, transient response and THD / IM distortion figures for any preamplifier. The fact that a recording microphone operates in an enclosed acoustic space (most frequently) which exhibits standing wave patterns, the fact that the microphone may be placed in a near-infinite relationship to the sound source and room boundaries and the fact that the microphone exhibits a non-linear spatial response are clear proof of the vast variety of subjective impressions that can be recorded with a single mic. No preamp is capable of such wide shifts in spatial, temporal or frequency domain perspective as a microphone used to record a source in an acoustical environment.

Therefore, the microphone is more important than the preamp.

 

[antichef]

Consequently there are lots of "recording engineers" around who don't have a firm grasp of electrical, mechanical and musical systems and the accepted terminology used to describe the interactions within and amongst those disciplines - most specifically, why the microphone is clearly orders of magnitude more important than any preamp.

like me! (except for the "recording engineer" part)

This fact can easily be demonstrated by comparing microphone polar plots along with room node analysis against frequency response, transient response and THD / IM distortion figures for any preamplifier. The fact that a recording microphone operates in an enclosed acoustic space (most frequently) which exhibits standing wave patterns, the fact that the microphone may be placed in a near-infinite relationship to the sound source and room boundaries and the fact that the microphone exhibits a non-linear spatial response are clear proof of the vast variety of subjective impressions that can be recorded with a single mic. No preamp is capable of such wide shifts in spatial, temporal or frequency domain perspective as a microphone used to record a source in an acoustical environment.

I can confirm that if you want to *screw up* a sound recording, it's trivial do to that with mic placement. To screw it up with preamp placement, you have to have move the preamp far enough away that your mic cable won't reach -- but, all feeble attempts at hilarity aside, that's a good point - the mic is the transducer, not the preamp

 

[moresound]

The most important piece of gear would be the one at the front lines....The microphone but as the signal moves through your recording line each piece of gear become justifiable important.

 

[Supercreep]

Pointless question is pointless. You need both. Cut corners where you will; practicality and frugality are valuable, but not substitutes for quality.

 

[Fishmed]

Pointless question is pointless. You need both. Cut corners where you will; practicality and frugality are valuable, but not substitutes for quality.

Don't pick at the scabs, this thread was on its way to its peaceful reasting place.

 

[MichaelJoly]

I believe there's a pretty compelling argument in my post above that shows the microphone is quantifiably more important than any preamp.

And to restate the challenge to those of you who believe the preamp is more important (or that they're both equally important) - please tell me, using the concepts and terminology of physics, acoustics or electrical engineering (not metaphor or parable) why it is you believe the preamp is more important.

It can be shown (in frequency, time and spatial domains) a microphone has orders of magnitude more influence over recorded sound than any preamp.