Why Do Boutique Preamps Cost So Much?

I've been doing this almost 60 years .... back in the day for the most part no one said 'I want a specific sound' so much as they used what they had and got the most out of it they could.

I pretty much do the same these days ...... whatever sound I can get is what I work with ..... often it drives the direction my recordings go.
I regularly get compliments on the sound I get but really, I do absolutely nothing to go after a certain sound ..... I simply go for lowest noise and distortion I can get within reason.

Now, I'm not a studio for hire and I only record my stuff so it doesn't matter ..... if you're a commercial studio my approach goes out the window because you have to please clients.

If that were the case for me I'd absolutely go with the latest tech
 
What do people actually want from a recording? For me, its the absence of noise, hums, distortion and unwanted artefacts - like phones, traffic, leaking headphones etc. If that can be done - I'm stage 1 happy. Then I spend time making what I recorded better - better from the point of view of the listener, not in any quality sense.

If preamps do the first stage well, that's good. If they can also do the second stage, I'm fine with that too, but stage 2 for me is really done in the DAW, not as part of the preamp. In all my years, I've been in a number of well known studios, usually doing lowly jobs - tape and cables spring to mind, but each studio has had a 'sound'. Very few of them would really allow the subtelties often attributed to these clever preamps of the wonderful kind. The trouble for me, spending my own money, is that I point money at things that really make a difference. Acoustics, mics, monitor speakers get my money first. preamps that sound different are just too subtle to justify their cost for me. The big ticket studios can afford them and maybe even use them as reasons to go there. I only have one really expensive mic, and frankly it will nevr earn it's keep. It is nicer, but a thousand pounds nicer? I don't think so.
 
rob aylestone said:
What do people actually want from a recording? For me, its the absence of noise, hums, distortion and unwanted artefacts - like phones, traffic, leaking headphones etc. If that can be done - I'm stage 1 happy. Then I spend time making what I recorded better - better from the point of view of the listener, not in any quality sense.

If preamps do the first stage well, that's good. If they can also do the second stage, I'm fine with that too, but stage 2 for me is really done in the DAW, not as part of the preamp. In all my years, I've been in a number of well known studios, usually doing lowly jobs - tape and cables spring to mind, but each studio has had a 'sound'. Very few of them would really allow the subtelties often attributed to these clever preamps of the wonderful kind. The trouble for me, spending my own money, is that I point money at things that really make a difference. Acoustics, mics, monitor speakers get my money first. preamps that sound different are just too subtle to justify their cost for me. The big ticket studios can afford them and maybe even use them as reasons to go there. I only have one really expensive mic, and frankly it will nevr earn it's keep. It is nicer, but a thousand pounds nicer? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
My motto is..... if it costs more than £100 then I cant afford it and dont need it! Ha ha
 
Mine is similar. If it costs more than a hundred quid then I, not others, need to be able to hear it.

some things are obvious, but some are just vanity!
 
Lt. Bob said:
I've been doing this almost 60 years .... back in the day for the most part no one said 'I want a specific sound' so much as they used what they had and got the most out of it they could.

I pretty much do the same these days ...... whatever sound I can get is what I work with ..... often it drives the direction my recordings go.
I regularly get compliments on the sound I get but really, I do absolutely nothing to go after a certain sound ..... I simply go for lowest noise and distortion I can get within reason.

Now, I'm not a studio for hire and I only record my stuff so it doesn't matter ..... if you're a commercial studio my approach goes out the window because you have to please clients.

If that were the case for me I'd absolutely go with the latest tech
Click to expand...
You old fart. Don’t you know us young folk find that distortion you hated so much desirable? 🤪
 
In all seriousness, there’s a SoundOnSound preamp shootout where the ART MPA II beat out Neves, APIs, and SSLs. Its all silly. Even the Onyx Mackie Mixer preamp fared well. I have recorded some clients here and there and, yes, my main reason for having these boutique preamps and mics is client bait. I can ACTUALLY claim I have the most expensive signal chain in the Tri-Cities, having visited all the studios in the region.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
You old fart. Don’t you know us young folk find that distortion you hated so much desirable? 🤪
Click to expand...
Ha! Ha! But joking aside, if I could afford a studio to record my son playing Bach on classical guitar, you would be unlikely to get the job! (or Clarinet. Rock guitar...maybe.)

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
Ha! Ha! But joking aside, if I could afford a studio to record my son playing Bach on classical guitar, you would be unlikely to get the job! (or Clarinet. Rock guitar...maybe.)

Dave.
Click to expand...
My room isn’t good enough for a classical guitar, so it’s different markets. I can’t record full bands, either.

I only record singer songwriters, and there’s a ton of them in my area.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
My room isn’t good enough for a classical guitar, so it’s different markets. I can’t record full bands, either.

I only record singer songwriters, and there’s a ton of them in my area.
Click to expand...
Well, I would suggest that if the room is good enough for a singer (and guitar?) it is good enough for classical guitar? Of course, we would all like Notre Dame or Abbey Rd #1 but son makes a decent fist of his recordings in his flat in France. I have no doubt they could be very much improved by a better mic (a Mackie 91c is the incumbent or a pair of Bherry C2s) I doubt any pre amp/converter would be an audible improvement on his MOTU M4. He also has no room treatment save a chair and a bed!

The point is 'classical' players of acoustic instruments want, for the most part an accurate reproduction of their instrument. People have laboured for centuries to make violins etc sound as good as they do. They do NOT want some smart-arsed whizz kid 'produhcer' putting fizz,fuzz or other distortions on the sound! A little humility would go a long way here.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
Well, I would suggest that if the room is good enough for a singer (and guitar?) it is good enough for classical guitar? Of course, we would all like Notre Dame or Abbey Rd #1 but son makes a decent fist of his recordings in his flat in France. I have no doubt they could be very much improved by a better mic (a Mackie 91c is the incumbent or a pair of Bherry C2s) I doubt any pre amp/converter would be an audible improvement on his MOTU M4. He also has no room treatment save a chair and a bed!

The point is 'classical' players of acoustic instruments want, for the most part an accurate reproduction of their instrument. People have laboured for centuries to make violins etc sound as good as they do. They do NOT want some smart-arsed whizz kid 'produhcer' putting fizz,fuzz or other distortions on the sound! A little humility would go a long way here.

Dave.
Click to expand...
I’m a classical guitar player myself, and I was making a joke. Relax. No need to insult me.

In my experience, a lush, live room goes a LONG way for a classical guitar. Here’s my classical guitar from the 1910s

I’ll also include a recording of one guy I recorded. Tube mic, tube pre, tube/tape sim plugins. Mediocre room. And yet it still sounds good and clean.

Yes, in my experience, the need for a mediocre room and a great room changes depending on what you’re recording

 

Attachments

  • 7CA7AB51-549E-4EEA-AC91-0621356F0C55.jpeg
    7CA7AB51-549E-4EEA-AC91-0621356F0C55.jpeg
    772.8 KB · Views: 2
CrowsofFritz said:
I’m a classical guitar player myself, and I was making a joke. Relax. No need to insult me.

In my experience, a lush, live room goes a LONG way for a classical guitar. Here’s my classical guitar from the 1910s

I’ll also include a recording of one guy I recorded. Tube mic, tube pre, tube/tape sim plugins. Mediocre room. And yet it still sounds good and clean.

Yes, in my experience, the need for a mediocre room and a great room changes depending on what you’re recording

Click to expand...
How did I insult you? I just made a suggestion. Yes, that recording sounds fine but I would rather a piece of Bach sans voice.
I don't know your MO for that recording but voice AND guitar is often a compromise.

But don't mind me! I am just an old retired valve amp tech with a lifelong interest in music, sound and recording. I am also clinically deaf and have two digital aids. I do not however wear them for listening to music. Bees in a bloody tin!

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
How did I insult you? I just made a suggestion. Yes, that recording sounds fine but I would rather a piece of Bach sans voice.
I don't know your MO for that recording but voice AND guitar is often a compromise.

But don't mind me! I am just an old retired valve amp tech with a lifelong interest in music, sound and recording. I am also clinically deaf and have two digital aids. I do not however wear them for listening to music. Bees in a bloody tin!

Dave.
Click to expand...
Because you assumed I’m an ignorant, smart ass whizz kid “pruhducer” because I cracked a joke that the people of today are after the sound that people wanted to get rid of back then, which is absolutely true.

I made no mention of classical recordings, which I know very well how to capture and have captured—for pay—but for some reason, that was relevant to the conversation.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
Because you assumed I’m an ignorant, smart ass whizz kid “pruhducer” because I cracked a joke that the people of today are after the sound that people wanted to get rid of back then, which is absolutely true.

I made no mention of classical recordings, which I know very well how to capture and have captured—for pay—but for some reason, that was relevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...
I "assume" nothing on a personal level friend (I hope?) My comment was aimed at those that DO think that every recording of every instrument and genre can and must be 'improved' by 'non-linear intervention' .

You mention valve mics(I'm a Brit you see) These of course date from an age when they had nothing else but I think every major mic manfctr now uses FETs in all but their legacy "boutique" models.

I have nothing against 'valves' fork! They were instrumental (Boom! Boom!) in me making a living for most of my life! But they are a PITA to power and can never achieve the low distortion and noise levels of sstate mics. But! If people like how they sound and are prepared to pay for them fair enough.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
I "assume" nothing on a personal level friend (I hope?) My comment was aimed at those that DO think that every recording of every instrument and genre can and must be 'improved' by 'non-linear intervention' .

You mention valve mics(I'm a Brit you see) These of course date from an age when they had nothing else but I think every major mic manfctr now uses FETs in all but their legacy "boutique" models.

I have nothing against 'valves' fork! They were instrumental (Boom! Boom!) in me making a living for most of my life! But they are a PITA to power and can never achieve the low distortion and noise levels of sstate mics. But! If people like how they sound and are prepared to pay for them fair enough.

Dave.
Click to expand...
I’m certainly in the long to praise digital and FETs over the older technology. I still find it ironic that people are chasing after the very thing people wanted to get rid of, though. There are thousands of plugins emulating tapes, tubes, transformers, etc. I just find that hilarious.

Now, one thing that does annoy me are SSL’s plugins. SSL made a name for themselves by being as transparent as possible. And now they’re marketing themselves as a mojo company. And people are gobbling it up.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
You old fart. Don’t you know us young folk find that distortion you hated so much desirable? 🤪
Click to expand...
lol .... :giggle:
I get that actually but in music basically ANYthing one person likes is hated by many others.

I do what I like without consideration for anyone else's opinion and everyone else should too unless you're making a commercial release in which case the court of public opinion is the only judge that matters.
And for an old guy I'm pretty open to anything and everything but yes, on my own recordings I am a product of my times ..... hard not to be I suppose.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
Now, one thing that does annoy me are SSL’s plugins. SSL made a name for themselves by being as transparent as possible. And now they’re marketing themselves as a mojo company. And people are gobbling it up.
Click to expand...
I'm new to the plug in thing so ...... SSL plugins?
 
One thing I don't think has been covered so far are actual valid reasons why some 'high end ' preamps are so expensive from a purely engineering perspective? If I may? ...

The actual circuitry is usually 'hole thru' components. This is more expensive to do but some people think SMT smacks of lower grade, mass production. It doesn't but, there's nowt s'queer as folk...

Some components, notably input transistors might be selected for lowest noise from batches of 100+Time and labour costs there. (although active components don't really contribute much to noise) Also the whole circuit might be built from discrete components eschewing op amps and/or DC coupled. Neither processes have any inherent sonic advantages but again, the non technical punters like them. Naturally this piles on the $$$.

One inherent problem with 'One Knob' gain controls on AIs say is that for more than about 55dB of gain it is almost impossible to get a 'nice' control of gain all through the rotation of the pot. There are various design fixes for this. Pads is one but the best answer is a switched gain stage covering say +5 to +60dB of front end gain and then a + and - 10-dB stage to follow. This allows optimum noise and headroom to be set. Gilding that lily would be another output control with perhaps another 10dB of gain (and usually an infinite attenuation). All these pots and especially high grade switches cost mucho wonga.

Power supplies: Many budget audio devices us wall rats or line lump supplies. Some people hate them but they do make equipment far cheaper and easier to sell world wide. Booteeky firms however will judge external supplies to be a stain on their excellence and will have built in SMPS or, in many cases, 'old fashioned' 50/60 Hz supplies. These latter are not a good companion to mic preamps especially those uber tweaky ones using transformers!

All of these design 'improvements' are lovely to have and since the kit should also be very well made with classy knobs etc it feels good to use but, none of these things NEED make for a better sound.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
I "assume" nothing on a personal level friend (I hope?) My comment was aimed at those that DO think that every recording of every instrument and genre can and must be 'improved' by 'non-linear intervention' .

You mention valve mics(I'm a Brit you see) These of course date from an age when they had nothing else but I think every major mic manfctr now uses FETs in all but their legacy "boutique" models.

I have nothing against 'valves' fork! They were instrumental (Boom! Boom!) in me making a living for most of my life! But they are a PITA to power and can never achieve the low distortion and noise levels of sstate mics. But! If people like how they sound and are prepared to pay for them fair enough.

Dave.
Click to expand...
If I could offer my 2 pennyworth here in the valve vs solid state debate? I am an old guitar play who studied electronics and music tech at college.
I think they both have their place for different applications.
I only speak for guitar as that is all I know.
Let me start with power output.. Watts is really not a very good reflection of an amplifiers true dynamic. Nowadays the manufacturers of cheap home audio try to con us with things like "peak power" or other measurements like that.
In my day it was RMS or Root Mean Square. So basically what that means you would pass a clean Sine wave though an oscilliscope, increase it until there was any distortion or degredation of the pure sine wave, and that was how the power of the amplifier was rated.
Solid state transistors react to voltage in a completely different way to vacuum tube valves. Transistors maintain the purity of the waveform to a higher level then once they reach there overload point just go fizz and distorted straight away wheras vacuum valves lose the integrity of the wave sooner, but the sine wave distorts in a more natural and gradual way, giving that more "warm" gradual harmonic overdrive that we guitarists crave. That is also why a 20Watt Valve amp will sound as loud as a 100W tranny equivalent.
Both technologies have their place for different applications.
PA amplifiers for instance need to be the most efficient and highest headroom. I believe they are all digital energy conversion these days.
But a lot of valve systems are used still, mostly in the guitar world. Some artists, like Lenny Kravitz for example still use valve recording desks and valve recording mikes.
Just my tuppence worth and my VHO.
Thanks 😄😉👍
Smithers
 
ecc83 said:
One thing I don't think has been covered so far are actual valid reasons why some 'high end ' preamps are so expensive from a purely engineering perspective? If I may? ...

The actual circuitry is usually 'hole thru' components. This is more expensive to do but some people think SMT smacks of lower grade, mass production. It doesn't but, there's nowt s'queer as folk...
...

All of these design 'improvements' are lovely to have and since the kit should also be very well made with classy knobs etc it feels good to use but, none of these things NEED make for a better sound.

Dave.
Click to expand...

In addition to all those excellent points - have you seen the price of transformers lately? The old gear used transformers because they were cheaper than building the equivalent driver or receiver circuit. These days a decent balanced line driver circuit costs pennies while a good transformer can cost tens of pounds. The other expensive part is the mechanical construction. Genuine Neve modules come in their own metal enclosure with complex multi-way switches. Again, when they were first designed, multiway switches weren't expensive relative to other components but these days they are far more expensive than resistors, capacitors and semiconductors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top