Philip


With utmost respect to Bit, James, and Danny: Sorry to rock the boat guys, but many novice and intermediate vox artists like myself are extremely inspired by good Pre's. 

I wish someone had shoved the Avalon Pre down my noob throat long before failing with Ethan Winer's clunky vocal booths (though I still try to avoid early reflections).  That was $300 of junk in my noob-hands.

Pre's vs Room Acoustics has always been a battleground amongst home producers, each vainly arguing the benefits of one and belittling the other  -- haha!  Observe home producers trolling against each other on this: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/414247-how-important-good-preamp.html

A good pre has been the single greatest investment I've ever made for my humble vox-centric productions as well as my humble vox.  JMO.  My productions are not that pro-sounding yet ... just intermediate level.

A good pre for me helps in the following:  limits vocal peaks, prevents clipping, dampens/gates out noise, compresses, equalizes, and de-esses, and excites ... all at the crtical source

... great for my novice singers and intermediates: and I now mouse around with clip-gain envelopes a lot less ...

There are many pre's to choose from, I merely recommended a dutiful and popular one.

Pre's do afford 'some' vintage tube or solidstate colorations/saturations at the source.  I've purchased several German and Russian vintage tube$ for my Avalon that probably were of no significance.

As far as mic technique goes, IIRC, I've seen Doug Rogers (co-author of EWQL samplers) sing directly into a bare-mic placed on his computer desk (on a desktop mic stand) -- hahaha! 

Are there really any rules?  I'm glad you guys who sing without a good pre are doing well!  But, a good pre was the best investment for my vocals and recordings.

To each his own I guess.

Hi Philip,
 
You're not rocking the boat at all. You've actually provided sound advice as well as what works for you. However, there are things that need to be considered that are really important that shouldn't be happening totally....which could be why at times you are struggling to mix your vocals or get the sound you are looking for. Remember we had that thread about vocals? After reading you here, it's easy to see now why some of these hardships may come your way...and I don't mean that harshly.
 
It's definitely a "to each his/her own" type of deal. But the thing to remember here is, a pre should be giving you the proper line level signal. Anything you do to the sound after that using the pre, is destructive audio...therefore, you could be creating these problems you experience later in your mix due to the pre...or possible over-use of it. Let's look at a few things.
 
You mention in your post: "A good pre for me helps in the following: limits vocal peaks, prevents clipping, dampens/gates out noise, compresses, equalizes, and de-esses, and excites ... all at the crtical source"
 
A pre should not limit vocal peaks, prevent clipping or dampen/gate out noise. I also do not feel it should excite or de-ess...and because you are doing all this at the source destructively, I feel you are creating hardships for yourself at THIS stage of the game in your engineering.
 
When you do all that stuff, it's almost like soloing up an instrument and eqing it just like we would while mixing. However, your problem comes in because once you mess with that pre, you have destructively edited the track for life. How do you know you didn't over-limit, remove too much noise bringing on artifacts or "excite" or de-ess the track too much? You can't make this call correctly during the print stage if you don't know what to listen for. I'm not saying you don't know how to listen....I'm saying unless you are seasoned enough to know what may be affecting the track negatively, a pre can be your worst nightmare. All the things you mentioned should be handled differently and a pre should not be what does most of them.
 
You mentioned limiting. A vocal pre shouldn't be the tool you use for this. You shouldn't even have a limiter on your voice at this point in the game nor should there be any type of limiting going on. Preventing clipping...this is the job of a good compressor which should be used so sparingly, it's not really being heard. You also need good signal levels and mic distance to determine this. You run your track signal at -6dB peak as the loudest point of attack in the vocal signal, and run the compressor at about 1:5 ratio with enough threshold to keep the loudest part you sing near or at -6dB. Control attack and release times to taste...however, if you hear the compressor kicking in, you're using too much. Save more compression to fit the song for non-destructive editing once you get the track in Sonar.
 
Dampening and gating out noise: You shouldn't have anything to gate out or dampen...period. If you are, you're over-using the pre way too hot and creating noise from the pre possibly. There should be 0 noise in your signal chain when printing a vocal or any other instrument. If there IS noise, you need to find the source of that asap and fix it.
 
Compression: Some pre's have decent compressors, others are horrible. Be careful using ANY type of outboard, destructive compression. If you use one (which I do too) use it sparingly.
 
EQ: Another thing to watch for. You can add noise and really create a horrible curve if you don't know what to listen for. What sounds good all alone doesn't always work in a mix. I can create really killer sounds that are awesome by themselves. Put them in a mix, they may sound terrible...and most times, they just don't work right. Add in over-processing at the print stage and you can easily ruin a track that is useless and may need to be reprinted.
 
De-essing and exciting: I don't do ANY of this at the print stage. It's too easy to degrade the sound of my tracks when I can do this non-destructively inside of Sonar. Why take the chance when you can have full control over the track AFTER it's printed using the pre in moderation?
 
All this stuff can really make a BAD difference. People will fight me to the death on this stuff...but that's ok. If it works for a person, go for it. I've had and used just about every pre there is. I use nothing other than a little board pre on my Tascam DM 4800 or my Mackie 32x8. But I no longer use any of my pricey outboard pre's and have sold most of them. I do not eq sound sources or over-compress at the print stage. I mic until the sound is right and may low pass or high pass depending on how much I really like the sound. I do not jump on the pre's in my boards to "warm up" the sound or add saturation as I do not like that sound today like I did back in the analog days of tape. I use my pre's to adjust my signal to disc with a slight amount of compression to condition the signal so that it remains nice and balanced at -6dB peak. Anything more is subjective...but can be achieved in Sonar with good plugs and a good set of ears.
 
I'll share a short story with you that altered my feelings on pre's and how I think they are sincerely over-priced, over-hyped and well...only needed if you cannot get enough signal to disc. When I was recording my album DanziLand, we had all of the best gear available to us. Drawmer, Manley, Avalon, Focus, Joe Meek...the list goes on and on. I brought the wave files of my recorded tracks home from the studio I rented out, and messed with them in my studio. I wanted to see/hear what made these pricey gizmo's so great. I recreated my tracks and compared....there was barely a difference and I liked mine better using no pre. Some tracks, I went direct into my soundcard. How could this be possible? Was it a fluke or were the pre's used incorrectly? I would think they were not since the engineer working on my material with me also worked on Breaking Benjamin's first album and was a pretty credible source.
 
When I brought back my versions of the tracks and we compared them, we all agreed there was no major difference in the sound, and everyone liked what I had come up with to where either version was acceptable. Mic pre's work...sure they are awesome tools...but they are not necessities nor do they need to be pushed unless you want that sound and know how to handle it. I've become friends with a pretty famous producer of the 80's that has millions upon millions of sales under his belt. Working with artists from Alice Cooper, Dweezil Zappa, Ratt, Winger, Europe and Warrant to name a few.  He was gracious enough to give me an interview that I posted on my own forum because I just felt his insight would be appreciated. One of the questions I asked him was about mic pre's. He answered it in one sentence. My exact question was...
 
Question: I have always had mixed emotions on mic pre's. Though they can make a difference in a recording, do you feel that the use of plugins non-destructively can achieve the same results? I have been fighting people on this for years. To me, if my signal is hot enough and I like the sound that is going to disc, am I not where I need to be without using a mic pre? If I have a good sound without one, do I really need it?
 
Answer: No, you don't....you nailed it, "a good sound without it!"

You also mentioned: "great for my novice singers and intermediates: and I now mouse around with clip-gain envelopes a lot less ..."
 
This is true, however, it's way too easy to over-use if you're not careful and I feel you may be doing just a bit of that. Granted, I've not heard any vocals from you that were horrible or even bad...a few little sibs here and there, but nothing that I felt was of poor quality. But, it depends how long it is taking you to achieve the vocal sounds you are getting and it could be possible that the over use of the pre may be the reason for that. Please keep in mind, I'm not downing the use of mic pre's but they should not EVER be used as a crutch or to fix problems that exist already.
 
Some guys use them to fatten up sounds etc...some guys use them for a certain coloration they add...all well and good if done in moderation while knowing what to listen for as well as having the ability to decide what is and what isn't, too much. The thing you saw with Doug Rogers is more proof that it's all in the delivery and how you go about this stuff. You have a world of non-destructive tools at your disposal...there is no need to over-process with a mic pre. The only thing you get from a mic pre that you won't get from plugs is tube saturation or an analog warmth. To me, analog warmth went out in the 70's so I'm not too into that sound today. I like a bit of brightness in vocals and welcome digital type sounds with open arms. All this "warm" stuff to me just makes things sound boxey and well...old so to speak. Other than that, UAD plugs and some others can cop anything you can get out of a mic pre as far as eq and sound characteristics go....and all this stuff is non-destructive and "undo-able" which to me gives it far more power than people realize. :) Hope some of this helps.
 
-Danny

And a simple add on to both previous posts, just to clarify...

A crap mic pre-amp will make your mic sound crap, & a good mic pre-amp will make your mic perform correctly. 

Excellent job James! And thank you for doing this! I'll keep my thoughts to myself on this....but I filled out the poll so it will probably tell you what my thoughts were. :)

-Danny

mike_mccue



There is also this little piece of business that might require further clarification:

Hi Mike,
 
I'm not quite sure what the above means. If the bit rate is the same in each file, it wouldn't report any differences anyway, right? Is it possible you downloaded the same file twice and it gave the one a number or something got screwy? When I downloaded the tunes, the names of them were his mix names he gave them...yours are different...why is that? 

guitartrek


Great playing and great recording.  It really illustrates the validity of Danny's thoughts about expensive pre's.  And it makes me feel better as I do not own any expensive pre's. And I'm glad I don't need to purchase any in the future.  I like doing as much as I can "in the box" as I think the quality of software plugs can do the job, and they are getting better and better as time goes on.  

For sure Geno....I agree. However, Mike has a great point in his post about pushing a pricey pre. Sometimes you really need to feed them to notice differences...especially in the tone department. Some guys use certain pre-amps because of the coloration, the saturation or the general characteristics of what that particular pre-amp can do. Me personally, I like things as clean as possible at all times. But a pricey pre, compressor, or anything outboard with a "name" has a certain quality about it for coloration. There are times when this type of coloration can only come from one thing...you guessed it, something hardware.
 
But, in my opinion and I really mean this, I do not think there is a single pre or piece of hardware gear that will make anyone say "omg I soo need to spend 20k for that!" in a blind test. Rest assured, most of the tones these things can get can be duplicated within reason...or you come darned close. Saturation and warmth....that's where you won't be able to dupe it...but you can find a happy medium with the pieces they have out today in software format.
 
But let's be realistic...if you have the proper signal going to disc, anything pushed into a pre is going to be a subjective coloration. The sound will not be bigger, better or worth the price that unit costs to *MOST* people. Does it make a difference? Sure...is it enough to justify the purchase? That will always remain in the ears of the beholder....but will remain hype and not a necessity to me...and I have no problems affording this stuff. It just doesn't blow my doors off to where it's worth that much and makes THAT much of a difference. Pushed or not...a signal is a signal. You can choose to color that signal destructively or non-destrcutively. To me, there's a difference between "better" and "different". Better means you're so blown away, you can't do without and notice a difference that makes you (if you're a dude and really into this field) walk on 3 legs while impressing people with your "tripod" skills. LOL! "Different" means, "yeah, I can tell a difference...it's cool, it's subjective, it works...but is it worth 5 or 10k more than what I have?" So again...it all becomes subjective at the end of the day. :)
 
-Danny

LOL Mike....I thought something was weird there when I saw your file names! I'm like..wait a minute, mine didn't come in with all those numbers...that sure looks like a windows temp file name or something. LOL!!

I did a "save target as" once I went to his sound page and it just saved the files the exact way he named them. Have you tried it that way? Just right click on one of his songs and do save target as and it will give it the same name he did and you should be ok. :)

-Danny

Nice recordings and performances on both A and B. 

Firstly, thank you all for taking the time to have a listen, and also for your kind words - it was just a roughy, but I'm glad some of you found some enjoyment in the playing anyway!

Mike - definitely no funny business going on here - not my style of humour at all! And I assure you the results I post in a few days will be totally honest! I am genuinely interested in what people make of the samples. Secondly, I apologize for obviously not making my previous post clear enough - the reason the performances sound so similar is that they are the same! 1 performance, 6 mics - 2 on vocals, 4 on guitar. Hopefully if you re-read my previous post it will make more sense now - but I made sure each 'set' of mics had their diaphragms as close as possible to each other, and angled them in slightly where necessary to ensure they were both pointing at exactly the same spot on the guitar. I recorded into 2 separate DAWs - 2 gtr mics and 1 vox mic into one, the other 2 gtr mics and vocal mic into another DAW, using a different preamp and converters.

You raise some good points Mike, but as I said, I am fully aware that this test has only limited uses. It is, however, more helpful than you currently believe I think, as both files are exactly the same performance, with mics in the same position - the only *significant* variables are the mics, preamps and converters used, which is of course what I am comparing here.

Good point about not driving the preamps hard, although they were as hot as I dare - the vocals even clipped (inaudibly) at one point. The guitar signals had a 'normal' amount of headroom - RMS was hovering at around -13db. I probably chose a song that is too dynamic (vocally). Tomorrow, depending on how much time I have, I will do the same test playing a song with no dynamics, so I can run both pres much hotter.

Although having said that, Mike, it raises the question - why would you drive a cheaper preamp beyond it's optimum range? A pro preamp may well behave better in this range, but if we can acheive similar results by recording at a lower level, why does it matter? Just food for thought 


FWIW I also tested the same mic, converters and song with different preamps. One was a tube preamp which I thought sounded quite disgusting when driven harder...


Danny, why will you not post your thoughts?! We'd love to hear them!


I'm going to bed now, but look forward to hopefully reading more on this tomorrow...

OK I'm still here...

Yes absolutely Mike, I guess I'm just too used to working under a very controlled environment where I wouldn't have 30-odd musos going crazy all at once! But I definitely have noticed how much nicer my higher end preamps are when pushed hard.

You've also got me worried that people might be listening to the wrong versions! I guess there is no real way of me verifying that my version A is indeed the version A that you have downloaded and are listening to.

Ok I really am going this time

James: my thoughts are, I hear slight differences...nothing that is really "better" in my opinion. You see, here's the deal....you performed very well using your instruments and your gear. None of these mixes would be considered bad in my book. There is nothing to me that sticks out as "wrong". And there's nothing in one mix that we couldn't eq or compress into another to make it sound similar. See my point? There isn't such a major fidelity difference here that makes me like one over another. They are all acceptable mixes to me no matter what was used.

I'm not hearing super apparent differences. Subtle eq nuances but that's about it. It's like, if 2 pro dudes mixed the same song. We'd probably prefer one over the other....however, I'd be willing to bet if we just judged the mixes for what they were leaving our personal preferences out, we'd not find faults in them other than personal preference really. Some guys mix a bit poppy with a bit more presence...others like a warmer, analog type tone to their mixes. Which mix do you choose? Me personally, I pick the one that remained audible on all counts that had no instrumentation that stuck out to me as having blatant artifacts or sounds that annoyed me. I don't really prefer dark, analog sounds in this day and age. That type of stuff just sounds dull to me. However, I don't like loads of harsh high end in a mix either. I can control my bias and choose the mix I felt best represented a piece of music. So it's all really subjective at the end of the day. You played and mixed both of these great...and even the raw files are done very well. It becomes a matter of opinion really, not which one sounded better than the other to me. I can say for example..."mix a sounded a bit brighter than mix b, but raw mix b had something in it that I just kinda dug on its own". If that were the case, it would prove nothing other than a personal preference and not really the pre's used. LOL! I'm not saying that's what I heard, it's just an example. What I did hear was 4 great examples to where none of them stuck out as being incredibly better than the other. :)

-Danny

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Danny, that is exactly what I was hoping people would consider - whether or not a major fidelity difference was perceivable between the two that makes you prefer one over the another. Obviously both are going to sound different - I used different mics, preamps and converters on each sample. But I am interested in discovering if anyone thinks, "wow, version x sounds infinitely better, not just different to the other. I must upgrade my gear if I want to produce a professional recording."

Thanks Timidi. I EQ'd them slightly differently to try and make it a bit more of a 'real world' scenario - if you could hear a problem which could be remedied with EQ, then you would do so! I didn't think there was much to be gained by using exactly the same EQ on each, as we would never do that in the real world.

I did, however provide both raw versions, so you can listen to each, warts and all.

When you get a chance to listen on some decent monitors, please do take the poll!

Music Miscreant

Danny Danzi

Music Miscreant

mike_mccue






All in all there's less to compare than there could be.

And too many questions about why we are hearing the differences you can hear...  e.g. is it just a difference in playing? Mic placement? Gain staging? etc. etc.

I wanna hear Sheryl Jones belt a tune into a Tube Tech and then step aside to a A.R.T. and see what happens.

One things for sure I enjoyed listening to Jame's song for that past hour. :-) Nice job James!


all the best,
mike

Yup, agree with you there - for what it's worth. Too many variables for constructive diagnosis, but James was indeed a delight to listen to.



Dani.
Your use of the term 'destructive' when referring to mic pre's is a bit misleading. They are no more destructive than the wrong choice of microphone. 
A compressor etc used in the recording process could be referred to as destructive, but not a mic - preamp. 


People do indeed record in different ways. I'm a producer & I tend to paint the song as I go. Using the outboard I have faith in more for its character than its quality.  

But at the end of the day it's the project that dictates what I use, where, how, when & why or, more importantly, whether I take that approach or not. 
 

Music, I'm not quite sure I would call what I'm saying misleading at all. If you eq something using a mic pre and use it to saturate, and you do this to the extreme like some people do, aren't you destructively processing the audio from it's original source? Can't you eq ITB where you can always undo something instead of being stuck with a call that might have been made prematurely? Isn't it all too easy to use a bit too much saturation from an outboard device due to the "moment" and then find out you have over-done it when you bring it into the mix?

These are the things I'm trying to stress. Sure, if you want that type of sound, use it. But some guys that are buying and using these pre's are not making the right decisions. They eq and set things up to sound good all alone and sometimes ruin the audio. If you know what you're going for and know what the outcome will be, it's fine to do whatever you want. But some are making a bad decision at times and are attempting to polish a turd in the outcome. For those that are aware of what they are doing, they don't fall into this catagory. I can fix a bad mic selection....I can't unsaturate an over-used pre amp. I can mess with eq to an extent, but if something is embedded into the sound because someone made a bad call, it may not be something that can be fixed. I'm just talking about extreme cases here...not about those that truly know what they are doing. But I still hold onto my original comments...I don't see the need for extreme use other than for special situations to where nothing else can get the sound of a pushed mic pre.

Your comment about compression....my scenario stated the use of subtle compression for conditioning only...not for compression like I would do on an actual track during mixing. Yes, what I'm doing is destructive, but it's so subtle, it's not going to affect the audio to where it would be a problem. :) I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just explaining the possibilities of going extreme.

-Danny

Yep, batting from the same wicket there, Danny. 


Having said that, I did say 'bit' misleading. And I was talking about mic pre-amps, not EQ or anything else.   
The point being I own two mic pre-amps that have no EQ or any other pointless attachments. A Germanium & a Summit.

Obviously you could take either of those delightful devices to the extreme, but the same could be said for my RME800, ATR100, BFD2, UAD's, or my mum - bless her. So it all comes down to the individuals competence at the end of the day - as usual. 
But you'd have to be one hell of a nonce to create a destructive recording with either of my two pre-amps. Oooh, there's that word again. 

But once again, just to clarify... I didn't refer to your post in general as misleading, I referred to your term 'destructive' (whether directly or indirectly) in relation to mic pre-amps in the recording chain as misleading. And by that (here I should have obviously been a little clearer) I meant specifically & purely 'mic pre-amps'. 

In other words it seemed (only seemed) you were bagging all outboard mic-pres together & painting them with the same brush. So, I just popped that post in. 
Got it? I hope so. 

MM 

Just to clarify, I think you may have misunderstood me. I WAS referring to strictly mic pre's but had thought that everyone would have known that *some* mic pre-amps have coloration controls that eq the sound. That's what I meant by "eq"...not additional eq as an entity. :) Some have compression built in, are loaded with "presets"...there's all kinds of ways these devices, if in the wrong hands, can mess up your audio destructively. Some guys buy channel strip pre's...some guys buy pre's with a gain knob with high pass/low pass.
 
Right, with the ones you have, without all that bogus crap, you either get a good signal the way you want it or you saturate it purposely. FWIW, the gentleman I was replying to initially is a friend of mine whom I've been helping out with his audio. He had a major vocal discussion thread a while back where he spoke about vocal issues. If he's hitting his pre a bit too hard or it has coloration features, it is quite possible that it is painting a false representation of what may be right for his mix because he is tracking it/creating the sound "as an entity" which is why I posted the way I did in THIS thread. :)
 
When you do this for years, you know pretty much ahead of time whether a sound is going to work or not. Some guys go crazy making the sound incredible on its own to where they may add stuff that doesn't really need to be there. Some of it might not be able to be dealt with when you start mixing. This is a common mistake with engineers that may not have the experience under their belts just yet. How many times have we heard this with guitarists coming up with these huge tones that sound like absolute @ss when you try to fit it in a mix because they over-processed the tone and may have ruined it before it hit the disc?
 
My apologies for seeming to bash on all mic pre's...but I thought I had expressed in my posts "when over-used" or "used to the extreme". I also feel that if one can achieve a good sound without one, which I have done several times, it's really not a major necessity for "MOST" people to feel the need to buy something super pricey. I think James proved quite a lot in his test to further support my point....although, there are times (like I also mentioned) that you may want to hit a pre harder than normal for a certain sound. The key there is, it is important to know what to listen for before doing so or you will destructively ruin your audio to where a reprint may be necessary. I really don't see how any of that can even be a bit misleading other than quite possibly I was misunderstood?
 
I'm not sure I follow you on the BFD2/UAD "extreme" example and how they would come into play with this particular discussion? BFD2 and UAD plugs are non-destructive/undo-able. If you made a bad call with those, it's easy to go back and fix, right? Extreme mic pre coloration is something permanent and destructive to where the track may need to be recut if a bad decision was made. Ok, maybe it will never happen in your studio because you have the experience under your belt to make the right calls. BUT, there are several that aren't quite at that level yet, ya know?
 
Maybe you just don't like my choice of words in using destructive/non-destructive? In my time, I've heard as many people ruin a print over-using these things as I've heard people getting incredible results from them. Re-reading my post, I can't see where anything was even a bit misleading other than me sharing my opinion as well as my personal experience whether it be right or wrong to anyone else. Sorry for any confusion...I'm just telling it like I've lived it. :)
 
-Danny

I find it curious that so many people use this as proof that there is no difference and that there seems to be a lack of interest in identifying the differences.

I offered an opinion about what I think the differences are in two of the tracks. I listened to the raw tracks.

And I'm not a guy that thinks my opinion about sound is all that picky. I don't have any fancy plug ins that sound better than regular plugins and I don't spend a lot of time tweaking mixes.

But I can hear a difference in the raw tracks. It just seems unnerving to think that others are saying that the differences are too small too appreciate.


Track B has a smoother and more open lower mid range and Track A blocks up and crunches on the upper mid range when the character of it's headroom is used.




I think James mentioned he owns a Germanium preamp... which is a very old style design... so it occurs to me that the Germanium may be the A track. Or perhaps the Germanium is on track B and what we hear is the sound when it isn't being pushed into it's signature distortion tone (think Eric Burden vocals). Maybe we hear the dedicated power supply allowing for detail in the lower mids on track B.

I'm curious to learn which track is what.



best regards,
mike

If you want to make it cut and dry I suggest someone throw those preamps in front of a Baritone Sax and hit record.

:-)

Maybe close mic a grand piano played in concert style as second test.


Making two channels sound the same doesn't even begin to suggest that the two channels offer the same range of capability.


If there was some investigation about what the two choices can not do similarly it might be easier to appreciate why some designers continue to specify an adequate budget while making a state of the art preamp.

This test serves as good explanation of why you can might be able to get by with what ever you have... but the results do not negate the easy to appreciate benefits of buying better gear if you can afford it.

best,
mike