Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
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? 
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 11:49:14
(permalink)
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.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 11:54:53
(permalink)
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!
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 13:20:46
(permalink)
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.
post edited by Rimshot - 2015/12/03 13:33:40
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2567
- Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
- Location: West Midlands, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 13:21:16
(permalink)
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.....
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board, ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre. Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
|
Guitarhacker
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 24398
- Joined: 2007/12/07 12:51:18
- Location: NC
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 13:21:38
(permalink)
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.
My website & music: www.herbhartley.com MC4/5/6/X1e.c, on a Custom DAW Focusrite Firewire Saffire Interface BMI/NSAI "Just as the blade chooses the warrior, so too, the song chooses the writer "
|
Leadfoot
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2817
- Joined: 2011/04/26 11:08:38
- Location: Indiana
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 13:28:24
(permalink)
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.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 13:34:00
(permalink)
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.
post edited by batsbrew - 2015/12/03 13:47:03
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 14:08:58
(permalink)
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.
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 14:12:25
(permalink)
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.
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
vdd
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 92
- Joined: 2014/12/22 17:26:14
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 14:59:33
(permalink)
I use an entry-level hybrid tube pre-amp and sometimes the sonar tube plug-in, as well. The great difference is: It is way easier to mix an already rich-sounding track than "Fixing it in the mix".
At first, it is hard to hear the difference. but after a couple of tracks over a longer period of time you will get it: A tube worns out, it changes its behaviour while recording - sometimes I think it is even the wheather. Your tracks get a unique color you will not get by using an emulation.
Second, the sound is always different compared to recordings from other people. Even if they bought the same amp.
In Short: If you want to have a unique, signature Sound than it is very helpful to have (analog) gear like a tube amp. If it is just the harmonic distortion: Save the Money by using the great plug-ins you can get today.
S-Plat x64 / i7-4790-3.60GHZ, 32GB RAM, Win 7 x64, Akai MPC Studio, Arturia Microbrute, Doepfer A-100, VTB-1, RME HDSPe
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 15:05:51
(permalink)
The problem here is that many here are putting the tube Mic Pre right at the top of the ladder and thinking there is nothing better which is wrong. The other issue is most of you are guitarists recording rock music so the genre is limited. The points here are based on that a little too much. Any tube Mic Pre introduces distortion by the use of valves and transformers. If you were to do a square wave analysis on a tube Mic Pre you would be a bit shocked. It would suck. (as reel to reel tape also suffers bad under certain tests!) So what is the alternative. A super clean transistor front end that has way less noise, distortion and so on and would probably eat a tube Mic Pre for breakfast. And be seriously more accurate. Many engineers recording classical music or many other genres would more than likely not use a tube Mic Pre in reality. Even recording digital sythesisers may not benefit from going through a tube mic pre on the way in. Or drums for that matter. (A class A valve circuit is fast and will handle a fast transient but a transformer is inferior at transients because of the slower rise times. So drums may sound better through non transformer circuits. Transformers have to be involved with valve circuits usually) So the truth is you have a choice of Mic Pres before going into your DAW and maybe you should think about what it is you are recording and what style and whether it is in fact the right choice. Everything you track through a tube Mic Pre will have that sound. You may not want it. Then there is the issue of can a recording that has been done through a clean Mic Pre be made to sound like a tube Mic Pre. Well then I guess what is being said here is probably true and the result may not be quite the same but it may still sound nice after processing though if you use the right tools. If they can emulate tape sound then there must be a decent emulation of a tube circuit out there too. (if they can emulate the huge sound of the finest analog synths and they can, then a tube circuit should be a snap) That gets us back to this. Even if the result is nice but not quite the same if the performance is stellar than it matters not a squat. Think of recording Frank Gambale doing an amazing solo and recording him either through a tube Mic pre or not. It sort of becomes moot because what he plays is going to drop your jaw the same amount just the same either way. Isn't that what is important. Maybe save your money and instead of spending $5000 on a tube Mic Pre there may be better ways to spend the money in your studio. If you can afford it the ideal situation is to have both a tube mic pre and a super clean accurate precision Mic Pre and then have the option of both. You will end up using both about the same amount. All the best studios I have worked in have both available. Just another point of view. 
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2015/12/03 15:28:52
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
vdd
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 92
- Joined: 2014/12/22 17:26:14
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 15:18:46
(permalink)
Additional to Jeffs comment: I think you speak about some low budget pre amps. if you are willing to spend ~250$ (I suspect) you will get a nice preamp compared to the one in your interface.
There are options like hybrid pre-amps, which are working as solid state pre-amps combined with a tube (example: Studio Projects VBT-1). In my opinion they are a large improvement for a low Investment and you can do both: clean and messy tube recordings - Jeff is right: Most time the signal will be messed up compared to modern pre-amps. But it is like speaking to a Death Metal guitarist: They don't want a brilliant Signal - they spend thousands to get amps messing up their signal and buying cabinets with the worst frequency spectrum you can imagine. But that is what defines their specific sound...
S-Plat x64 / i7-4790-3.60GHZ, 32GB RAM, Win 7 x64, Akai MPC Studio, Arturia Microbrute, Doepfer A-100, VTB-1, RME HDSPe
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 16:48:44
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
The problem here is that many here are putting the tube Mic Pre right at the top of the ladder and thinking there is nothing better which is wrong. The other issue is most of you are guitarists recording rock music so the genre is limited. The points here are based on that a little too much.
Any tube Mic Pre introduces distortion by the use of valves and transformers. If you were to do a square wave analysis on a tube Mic Pre you would be a bit shocked. It would suck. (as reel to reel tape also suffers bad under certain tests!)
So what is the alternative. A super clean transistor front end that has way less noise, distortion and so on and would probably eat a tube Mic Pre for breakfast. And be seriously more accurate.
Many engineers recording classical music or many other genres would more than likely not use a tube Mic Pre in reality. Even recording digital sythesisers may not benefit from going through a tube mic pre on the way in. Or drums for that matter. (A class A valve circuit is fast and will handle a fast transient but a transformer is inferior at transients because of the slower rise times. So drums may sound better through non transformer circuits. Transformers have to be involved with valve circuits usually)
So the truth is you have a choice of Mic Pres before going into your DAW and maybe you should think about what it is you are recording and what style and whether it is in fact the right choice. Everything you track through a tube Mic Pre will have that sound. You may not want it.
Then there is the issue of can a recording that has been done through a clean Mic Pre be made to sound like a tube Mic Pre. Well then I guess what is being said here is probably true and the result may not be quite the same but it may still sound nice after processing though if you use the right tools. If they can emulate tape sound then there must be a decent emulation of a tube circuit out there too. (if they can emulate the huge sound of the finest analog synths and they can, then a tube circuit should be a snap)
That gets us back to this. Even if the result is nice but not quite the same if the performance is stellar than it matters not a squat. Think of recording Frank Gambale doing an amazing solo and recording him either through a tube Mic pre or not. It sort of becomes moot because what he plays is going to drop your jaw the same amount just the same either way. Isn't that what is important.
Maybe save your money and instead of spending $5000 on a tube Mic Pre there may be better ways to spend the money in your studio. If you can afford it the ideal situation is to have both a tube mic pre and a super clean accurate precision Mic Pre and then have the option of both. You will end up using both about the same amount. All the best studios I have worked in have both available.
Just another point of view.
Good points Jeff. For my studio, the UR44 mic pres are more than adequate and I do get good mic recordings of voice, guitars, and percussion. I had a Alesis stereo tube preamp that I tried for about a year on stuff and it now has died. I liked it on bass guitar the most. It was interesting on live guitars and vocal but never became a go to piece. The other night, I recorded a voice and used the Presonus VT1 on the input stage just for fun. It sounded great to me. That's when I started thinking about replacing the cheap Alesis or not. At this point, I am not going to bother with such a cheap unit and instead, will be learning all I can about VST tube emulators. I wanted to hear from the pro's what you guys suggest and how you do it. I love the conversation and find it very rewarding. If I owned a good tube mic pre, I would definately compare with and without to my digital mic pres just to understand the true difference. My gut tells me that when all plugs are applied and the song is finally mixed, there may not be a huge difference in the sound of the finished vocal either way. Using compressors, limiters, EQ, EFX, and how the vocalist sang all play a huge part in the final product. Thanks again.
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 17:54:49
(permalink)
I don't have the Presonus VT1 actually and I am a full Presonus Studio One user and all. I should get it really. I have heard good things about it as well. Apparently it does sound rather close to their valve Pre.
The concept that vdd has mentioned is also a good one and that is the idea of having a tube pre and a high quality solid state stage in the one unit sounds rather interesting to me. And the fact you can blend these things too would only add to the sonic variations available. Personally I might be starting there to see what is out there.
I have a Yamaha digital mixer with very clean and useable Mic pres on board and the thing is I have recorded everything for the last ten years or so through that and never had any complaints really. By the time as you say when you start adding some nice emulators here and there I have always managed to get the tracks sounding very nice in the end.
I don't dispute what Bats says either as recording through a killer valve Pre on a great slightly distorted guitar sound can be just stellar. I have done it and love it for sure! And yes bass seems to reap the benefits too. Vocals can go either way I have found. It depends on the Mic/singer combination first I feel and then the Pre next in vocal tracks.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Mosvalve
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1194
- Joined: 2009/11/20 20:49:33
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 21:16:24
(permalink)
Rimshot
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.
Now that we have aux's and patch points which allow us to record through a plugin might be a way to test just how these plugins really fair. I wonder if the sound would be different on the way in than it is when putting it on an already recorded track.
BobV ASUS Prime Z370-P - Intel Core i7+ 8700K 3.7GHZ 16GB Memory, Intel HD Graphics 630 GPU, Windows 10 Pro 64bit, , Sonar Platinum 64bit, Motu 828MK3 Hybrid, Warm Audio TB12 Pre, Warm Audio WA273 Pre, AEA RPQ 500 Pre, Warm Audio WA76 Compressor, Presonus D8 Pre, Tonelux EQ5P 500 Eq, Kush Electra 500 Eq, Lindell PEX 500 Eq, Yamaha 80M monitors with HS10W Sub, and a bunch of other good stuff. I have a Roland Juno-106 that's looking for a new home. PM me.
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/03 23:07:09
(permalink)
Jimmy, I'm in a session right now and having a coffee break, but will stop back and give you my take. Just for a quick answer, Jeff shares my view. The tube pre usage depends on the instrument and situation in my opinion and just adds some coloration. I personally can get similar coloration with vst effects. Not exact as hardware pres with real tubes color differently. That said, it is in the ears of the beholder as to whether or not it's "better". I personally stay away from tube pres unless I am going for something specific. It's rare I use them because my uad stuff comes close enough to me to where I can process after and get really convincing results. That said, I've not heard any plugs that I have tried that come close to uad as far as saturation goes. No one has it down other than them....and trust me, I've tried quite a few. Digital distortion is not the same as saturation drive. Uad doesn't give those types of artifacts which is why they are more convincing to me. Hmm...maybe I covered it all. There was more I wanted to say but can't remember. Bottom line....a great tube pre will give you the sound of different, not necessarily better. It's all subjective and another tool in your tool box. Some guys swear by them, other guys like me feel they are more hype and cost than they are worth. Unless there is a specific processing warmth or characteristic within a tube pre that makes a huge difference, there are ways to come close. You have to weigh whether or not that 2% difference only an engineer would hear justifies the purchase. Engineers don't buy records as much as the ordinary folks that don't know jack about this field. I say save your money or get a uad Rig and have several choices instead of just one hardware unit. -Danny
post edited by Danny Danzi - 2015/12/03 23:20:15
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/04 02:41:54
(permalink)
Mosvalve
Rimshot
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.
Now that we have aux's and patch points which allow us to record through a plugin might be a way to test just how these plugins really fair. I wonder if the sound would be different on the way in than it is when putting it on an already recorded track.
That's one of my questions. In my test, it seemed to work well putting at tube compressor on the way in. Now I want to test both ways and see if it really does make a difference. I have read that it can't but I want to test it.
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/04 02:49:03
(permalink)
Danny Danzi
Jimmy, I'm in a session right now and having a coffee break, but will stop back and give you my take. Just for a quick answer, Jeff shares my view. The tube pre usage depends on the instrument and situation in my opinion and just adds some coloration. I personally can get similar coloration with vst effects. Not exact as hardware pres with real tubes color differently. That said, it is in the ears of the beholder as to whether or not it's "better".
I personally stay away from tube pres unless I am going for something specific. It's rare I use them because my uad stuff comes close enough to me to where I can process after and get really convincing results. That said, I've not heard any plugs that I have tried that come close to uad as far as saturation goes. No one has it down other than them....and trust me, I've tried quite a few. Digital distortion is not the same as saturation drive. Uad doesn't give those types of artifacts which is why they are more convincing to me. Hmm...maybe I covered it all. There was more I wanted to say but can't remember.
Bottom line....a great tube pre will give you the sound of different, not necessarily better. It's all subjective and another tool in your tool box. Some guys swear by them, other guys like me feel they are more hype and cost than they are worth. Unless there is a specific processing warmth or characteristic within a tube pre that makes a huge difference, there are ways to come close. You have to weigh whether or not that 2% difference only an engineer would hear justifies the purchase. Engineers don't buy records as much as the ordinary folks that don't know jack about this field. I say save your money or get a uad Rig and have several choices instead of just one hardware unit.
-Danny
Thanks for your input Danny. It's good to know that you are having great results with uad. I don't know much about that line at all and will research it. You said it well about mic pres being another tool in the tool box. That makes sense. I like the several choices vs. one hardware unit approach as well. Heck, from my single room studio in Central California, it wouldn't make sense to invest a lot in hardware at this point in my life. I can dig those that do. I would love to have better mics, outboard gear and all but have to justify it. Thanks again.
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
Richard Cranium
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 474
- Joined: 2015/09/19 06:55:34
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/04 03:10:30
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
I don't have the Presonus VT1 actually and I am a full Presonus Studio One user and all. I should get it really. I have heard good things about it as well. Apparently it does sound rather close to their valve Pre.
You should get it, I got the channel strip collection on release, and they are both very good, more than hold their own against any other channel strip in my collection, love 'em
Studio One 3 Rocks The House, Frequently Voted Best DAW 2015 !!
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/04 09:26:36
(permalink)
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 11:41:50
(permalink)
I tested this morning running a condenser mic through my MICTUBE DUO (which I repaired) and comparing to a direct signal. On the recorded direct signal, I applied the Presonus VT1 tube compressor. The direct recording with the VT1 beat the MICTUBE recording by far.
So using a cheap tube mic pre on MY vocal can really degrade the sound. Maybe not so for bass and guitars.
The point being you have to start with a really good tube pre. I don't know how the other cheep units fair but I am staying away from the MICTUBE for vocals!
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
Paul P
Max Output Level: -48.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2685
- Joined: 2012/12/08 17:15:47
- Location: Montreal
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 11:54:38
(permalink)
Guitarhacker
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.
I imagine one would also need a fair amount of experience listening to diffent qualities of preamplification to appreciate any fine differences. And have a room and reproduction system of high enough quality that they'll even appear.
Sonar Platinum [2017.10], Win7U x64 sp1, Xeon E5-1620 3.6 GHz, Asus P9X79WS, 16 GB ECC, 128gb SSD, HD7950, Mackie Blackjack
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 13:59:30
(permalink)
Paul P
Guitarhacker
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.
I imagine one would also need a fair amount of experience listening to diffent qualities of preamplification to appreciate any fine differences. And have a room and reproduction system of high enough quality that they'll even appear.
Hi Paul, Before I begin, I'm not picking on you.....but your post hits home and I felt the need to address it for others that may be thinking this way. Firstly, quite a few would try to lead you to believe you need to know what to listen for in a pre. I don't believe this to be true. It either sounds good or it doesn't. The other thing to keep in mind is the sound you are going for. Do we always want dirt from the tube pre? Not always.....so, the question we ask then is "how does it sound just getting a good signal to disc?" Chances are it's going to sound the same as any other pre sending a -6dB to -10dB signal....and if there are differences, how apparent are they and are they worth a costly hardware investment? Also, if we need a special room with the right reproduction, it drives my original post home even further. The only ones to hear this would be other engineers. Winner....marketing reps. See my points? In the world of non-destructive audio with so many choices, I really have a hard time committing to a signal that is pushed destructively unless that is the sound I am going for. How many times will that happen depends on personal needs as well as clientele. So a guy like me is 9 out of 10 times NOT going to run any pre that I use hot enough to color destructively. With that frame of mind as well as the ability to come pretty close using uad plugs, it would be ludicrous for me to spend 2K or more on a mic pre. I have some good ones, but I get what I need out of Midas pres that are built into my console. They are not tube but they sure have received a lot of praise over the years. Honest this hardware stuff is both a little snobbish and a lot subjective. But none of it is necessity other than for those that love hardware. It reminds me of the time I had a Manley massive passive, and an LA2A and compared them to the uad plugin versions. Was it exact....no, but it was close enough to where after 3 listens blindly, I could barely tell which was which. I sold both pieces of hardware and gained as many plugins as my uad cards could handle. A 2% difference that only I can hear which I can't hear any longer once you add in other instruments....and the answer was simple. Yes there are times stuff like this may be cool...but my advice is to not buy into the hype.....especially if you can't afford to. :) Again this isn't really directed at you or anyone at all. I'm just discussing based on your post. There are no magic rooms or gizmos. We are involved in one of the most subjective, hyped up and misleading fields of all time. I try my best to ram that home whenever I can. :) -Danny
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 15:24:22
(permalink)
pick your favorite pro producer or engineer...
investigate what is their favorite front end gear.....
assume THEY know what they are doing...
there should be a reason for everything.
begin there.
|
Rimshot
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4625
- Joined: 2010/12/09 12:51:08
- Location: California
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 16:45:04
(permalink)
It is all boiling down to basic need. To Danny, I agree that the overblown price of hardware makes it really hard for the guy in his bedroom to compete with pro audio (not paraphrasing you Danny). I also agree with bats that great hardware can be found with the pros (Danny agrees as well). I liked Jeff's comment about not always apply hardware to every setting. So I am not feeling that I have to own some great hardware to produce great recordings.
I want to produce the best sounding music I can based on a very limited budget. I am proud of what I get out of very basic equipment and software. If I running a pro studio, I would have better gear to satisfy the demands of my clients. However, with my little piece of the world here at my desk, I don't think I am at the bottom of the spectrum either. Today's technology is helping all of us produce better results in much more controlled formats. I like that.
The reason for this thread was to hear from you guys that own good hardware and what you think of its use for vocals. I believe I have learned from all of you that it's great to have it but not in any way a huge deficit if you don't.
That makes me feel better. I am also continuing to look forward to the future when our VST's will help eliminate expensive hardware so that more and more of us home body's can enjoy better and better sound.
Rimshot Sonar Platinum 64 (Lifer), Studio One V3.5, Notion 6, Steinberg UR44, Zoom R24, Purrrfect Audio Pro Studio DAW (Case: Silent Mid Tower, Power Supply: 600w quiet, Haswell CPU: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz (8 threads), RAM: 16GB DDR3/1600 , OS drive: 1TB HD, Audio drive: 1TB HD), Windows 10 x64 Anniversary, Equator D5 monitors, Faderport, FP8, Akai MPK261
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 16:51:17
(permalink)
"I want to produce the best sounding music I can based on a very limited budget."
then i would give up on tube hardware,
because the good stuff is expensive,
and the cheap stuff is really not worth using.
good solid state mic preamps have probably more overall value than tube,
and can be had WAY cheaper.
ultimately, for folks who are poor,
the preamps in the low to mid grade usb interfaces are good enough.
always use what you got, no matter what everybody else is doing
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 16:52:51
(permalink)
but never misunderstand this:
your front end will define the quality of your sound.
mics first.....
preamps later...
then everything else, with convertors probably being number 2 on the most important list
|
Jesse Screed
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1158
- Joined: 2015/10/29 16:05:40
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 18:55:42
(permalink)
Hello, there is some great information in this thread. I am learning a lot from the experienced folks. I was going to add an opinion to the varied comments, but decided that my opinion would really add nothing more to the discussion.
But I will add this.
1. record record record
2. learn learn learn
3. find your voice...your voice...not someone else
4. ask yourself who you want to please and what you want to accomplish
5. seek out the gear that helps you meet #5
6. if you already have what you need, see #3
7. once you find your voice you are best to focus on #1 and # 2
Bat knows who he is, Danny knows who he is, Jeff knows who he is, their confidence show through. I'm learning who I am and I'm heading that way now
Jesse
|
Wouter Schijns
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 259
- Joined: 2013/01/30 10:29:18
- Status: offline
Re: Why use a tube mic pre if I apply a tube VST to the recording afterwards?
2015/12/05 19:19:30
(permalink)
would save untill I could afford a for example RME interface ( I don't have one but..). you read everywhere those have good vocals/guitar preamps and the rest of your music should sound better on it too. untill then you could try the Nomad Factory plugin 'Analog Trackbox' tube emulations (it's in the presets). (hope you have this plugin, it came with Sonar X2 or X3 iic.) I usually dial back the compression and turn off 'limiting' and 'gate' and dial back some tube effect. good luck
post edited by Wouter Schijns - 2015/12/05 19:31:22
|