If I could afford a good tube mic pre, I would not post this question. I know that they can warm up the sound a lot before it hits the DAW.

However, I really like the sound of the Presonus VT1. It is a VST tube emulation of their tube mic pre.
I am now recording a condenser mic thru my Steinberg UR44 which has good clean solid state preamps. 
I then treat the recording with the VT1, EQ, Compression, etc.

My question is how much quality could I be missing by not using a tube preamp going into the DAW?
Since I can apply a tube VST effect to it anyway, how much difference can the end sound be?
 
This especially releavant to mixing a song. By the time all is said and done, does applying tube efx to a vocal after the fact make up for not using a tube preamp from the get go?
 

a real tube mic pre (a good one) will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS sound better than a vst.
 
period.
 
now, the whole point of using a real tube pre,
is to do a few things:
get the gain level right.
impart harmonic content.
add TONE.
this is a real circuit, doing real mojo, on a real signal.
 
a vst, fakes it.
LOL
 
i mean, literally, it takes whatever 'somewhat decent' signal you put into a wave form via whatever..
 
and does stuff to it AFTER the fact.
 
i rest my case.
 

there are so many good tube mic pres out there...
you have to seperate them by the cost...
if you can afford a good $1000-$2000 tube mic pre, get it.
but if you can't,
just look for the best in range.

but remember...
MOST of the classic recordings you've been listening to over the years,
were of course done using high end mic pres to shape the sound of the mic just so,
but they were NOT tube pres!

Good points bat and I do know that pro's use the great hardware. I just can't afford it!
So I am hoping you could let me know the difference as it relates to the final product as I mentioned in my post. 
 
If we start with a really good vocal recording without tube compression, add tubelike EFX from a VST, and mix the song, how different would that be compared to have recorded the source going through a tube preamp?
 
I am sure there is some but in the end, how much? I have read about Klanghelm 
MJUC - variable-tube* compressor
http://www.klanghelm.com/MJUC_models.php
 
as well as the work Phillip Bulling did on the phi-L Audio VST preamp.
https://philaudio.wordpress.com/research/tube-preamp/
 
There seems to be some good science behind these plugs. Maybe we are not there yet but perhaps someday, we could get closer to hardware pre's then we are today. 

I just don't know because I no longer work with the hardware. 
 
Back in the day, I used U47 and U87's along with the Teletronix LA-2A at many different studios in L.A. It was great because as a drummer, engineer,  or producer, most studios had their equipment covered. 
Now, I don't want to purchased an inexpensive (cheap) tube preamp just because and I also don't want to part with hundreds or thousands of dollars for hardware. Thus, my question.
 
 
 

Rimshot
My question is how much quality could I be missing by not using a tube preamp going into the DAW?
Since I can apply a tube VST effect to it anyway, how much difference can the end sound be?
 
This especially releavant to mixing a song. By the time all is said and done, does applying tube efx to a vocal after the fact make up for not using a tube preamp from the get go?

The answer, I think, is "it depends".

Firstly, you have to define "warmth" and why that might, or might not, be a good thing. You also have to define "quality". So in the end it's down to what your ears tell you.

There will be a difference between using a valve pre-amp routed into the (solid state) interface and just using solid state and adding plugins afterwards. For a start, there's how well the plugin actually emulates not just a valve, but the entire circuit - transformers, power supply circuit etc. - that surrounds it. Even if the emulation is perfect you're still going valve->solid state in one configuration and solid state->"valve" in the other. Which means the result won't be the same because the first configuration is an ss circuit modifying what comes out of the valve pre and the other is a "valve" modifying what comes out of the ss preamp and interface.

Having said that, in my opinion emulation of valve circuits is a very mixed thing. Some are good, some are poor, others don't sound a bit like the "real thing" but still make a usable, but different, result. I'm happy to use some emulations of hardware, less so others - in particular I find amp/guitar fx emulators to on the whole be very "fake", but millions of people use them so what do I know.

The thing about valves is that in a lot of circuits, guitar amps aside, they weren't intended to produce harmonic distortion, they were the best attempt at the time to design and build as quiet and accurate a circuit as possible, with the unavoidable side effects of the technology hopefully being either minimised ot tweaked tomsound good anyway. That to me is the kind of circuit most successfully emulated. What emulations can't do of course is let you swap a JJ 12AX7 for an old Philips 7025 then try a modern Tesla and so on. And different manufacturers valves can and do sound different even though they're electronically compatible and supposedly the same specification.

For pre-amps, compressors and other gear not being pushed into much overdrive many plugins are actually pretty good I think. Personally I have no aching desire for a high-end valve mic pre-amp, but I'm very fussy about what goes into my guitar amps.

And as batsbrew says, most recordings from the late 60s onwards were mostly made using solid state consoles or solid state stand-alone hardware. It was transistors that made the big multi-channel desk viable. Valves may be better under some circumstances than solid state at creating a musical sound in the first place, but for consistency, accurate sound capture and minimal unwanted effects at the mixing/mastering stage transistors have a lot going for them. And solid state circuits also have their own individual characteristics.....

That said...and Bat makes a good point..... tube pre's.... the good ones are well worth using.....the reality is many folks can not either afford one or choose to record without one.
 
Personally, I don't use one. My interface has preamps built in and I roll with  that.  Money being the main reason.  For what I use it for, it works for me and sounds pretty decent. It is clean which works well for my music. The only vst's I use are some EQ, compression and verb.  The tape sims and other "warmers" simply distort the original signal in one way or another and give the appearance or sound of a fatter sound.

Since I have never used a tube pre..... perhaps this is simply a case of you don't know what you're missing if you never tried it. So..... maybe it's time for a visit to a store to compare the sound of my mic (RodeNT2A) with and without tube pre's on it.  Who knows.... maybe I'll become a believer and come home with a new tool.  I have looked at getting a pre in the past but from what I was hearing, a good one is north of $500. Less than that was a waste of money. Am I right or wrong on that?  IDK....

Kinda like using a transistor fuzz box on a solid state amp to approximate the sound of overdriven tubes. While it sounds pretty decent in it's own right, it's still not like the real thing. 

Hey Rimshot. Although I feel that real hardware always sounds better than VST's, I would like to say that I have the Klanghelm MJUC, and recommend it highly. It's an awesome sounding compressor, and it's very versatile.

Rimshot
So I am hoping you could let me know the difference as it relates to the final product as I mentioned in my post. 

 
already did, in my post above.
 

RimshotIf we start with a really good vocal recording without tube compression, add tubelike EFX from a VST, and mix the song, how different would that be compared to have recorded the source going through a tube preamp?

 
in my opinion, a HUGE difference.
it just ain't the same.
all i can say is, do it one way, then do it the other, and listen.
 
good vst's are nice..
but you do not get the same end result by applying effects to a wav file, 
than you do actually creating the effect/sound/capture of source BEFORE it goes thru conversion.
there is a 3d effect that happens with a great capture, that you cannot artificially put in with software.
at least, not to my ears.
 
 

RimshotThere seems to be some good science behind these plugs. Maybe we are not there yet but perhaps someday, we could get closer to hardware pre's then we are today. 

I just don't know because I no longer work with the hardware. 

 
i've worked in studios with both vst's and expensive hardware, a good bit.
i use WAVES plugins for my vsts, in sonar, plus added odd plugins from various sources.
i also own a really nice class A tube mic pre, and some cheapy's too.
outboard compression...
i have a decent set of mics, but nothing as nice as the 47's, tho i've tracked with them in other studios.
 
i've never been able to reproduce my best hardware captures, using only basic mic input and vsts added after the fact.
 
 

First, all the old tube preamps etc. were chock full of transformers, which provide a good chunk of the sound.  Transformer-based preamps aren't necessarily expensive, like the ISA One (big not vintage) and WARM WA12.  Both can be had for around $400.  I guarantee either of those will sound different than your built-in pres if you drive them into saturation.  The cheapest tube pre (full voltage) is the electro harmonix for less than $200.  I've no experience but some people really like it, esp. after a tube upgrade.  I've heard too that it is a quality control problem like in the old days at GM.  Get a car built on Monday or Friday and the crews were too drunk or hungover to make a good car.  I heard the same thing about Oktava mics, so just be aware you might have to try a few before you get a keeper.
 
As far as plugins over hardware - the difference ain't as much as it use to be but they still exist.  First thing is you can't really play into a virtual pre (or anything).  A good player or engineer can make natural use of the performance.  Say the singer naturally cranks up the vol on the chorus and you set the preamp so it just saturates a bit then, giving a more urgent tone.  That might be a trick you'd never realize by setting your VST post-tracking, and would probably be hard to replicate in post.  And you'll be doing that instead of making small vol adjustments on the vocal or some other clearly post task.  Plugin are the best for making tiny adjustments and nailing volumes etc.  Hardware still rules for tone and color.  There are non-linearities and variables in hardware that will probably never be accounted for in modeling, since by definition modeling is of a steady-state, a one shot sample, if you will, of the hardware.
 
And some of it is just snobbery.  Of course, the most hardened engineer can light up like a kid at Christmas when they show you their "vintage '73" or some other bragging rights gear.  Seeing that it is hard to look down on the snobbery at all.

I totally get that there is no replacement or substitute for good hardware on this issue. 
Since I don't own any to compare to, I am looking for those like bat that do have them.
 
I appreciate all the feedback so far. It would be great to hear a sample of with and without a tube pre and a post recording VST tube EFX applied to really understand the huge difference. I have been searching YouTube for 2 days and have not found anything yet.