Thanks for the Great Input Bill

You hit it on the head in 2 statements that I have been concentrating on for a while now. (hence my thinking on the Mic Pres and Mics)

First-I came to the conclusion that capturing/tracking really well in the first place will eliminate allot of work in the mixing stage which will give me better head room and dynamics.  Huge time and frustration saver if Im thinking right.   That train of thought of-Crap in/Crap out

Second-Acoustic guitar and voice can be darned difficult to capture well... but it is so much fun trying to do so!!!!  

Your statements are confirming kind of what I am thinking/feeling and after.  

Ive got some decent monitors but my room is under construction still so Im putting the monitors situation (Proper setup and sound treatment) on the back burner until I finish with the mess of construction.
I think my weakest point in the chain that I have now and where I want to be is now the mics.  I see such a huge difference between all the ones I have, but these where picked up more for gigging and not studio type work which they do a fine job for in clubs and outdoor events.

I do appreciate Reece's humor and I am sorry for sounding too serious. 

The only part that rings true for is the first line of Bills post...You really do need better microphones. The rest I don't agree with at all.

In order of importance, please note:

1     Great piece of Music
2     Guitar performance
3     Guitar
4     Microphone and placement
5     Mic Pre
6     A to D conversion

See where the Mic Pres sit on that list pretty low down.

I would rather a handful of expensive mikes and use the Mackie VLZ as the pres any day over a bunch of average mics and a whole lot of expensive pres. The former will sound way better by miles.

Sound on Sound recently did a shoot out of expensive Mic Pres and compared them to average ones like Mackie etc. In the end people only imagined they heard differences when told what they were listening to but in a blind test may could not tell a thing. Sort of reinforced my argument. But I must also say I am talking about all these pres non expensive and expensive being used with moderate amounts of gain and being used right in the most linear part of their response. The place where some of the more expensive pres really shine is being driven hard etc and being pushed gain wise too so they start to impose their sound onto the signal. Cheaper pres would not fair too well under the same conditions. But if we keep things on a more even keel then they are much closer than you think.

I am pretty sure Bill and many other Mic Pre lovers would probably have a hard time in a very controlled A/B blind test. Even the standard Mic pre in a lot of mixers are pretty good these days. They offer low distortion, high headroom, low noise etc..Very transparent sound etc..The Pres in the VS700R are very nice and I don't doubt the ones in the new Studio Capture would also be very very nice too.

I recently mastered a beautiful album that was mixed by an award winning mix engineer here in Australia. During the mix the engineer asked the client what expensive mikes and pres he was using because he was so impressed with the sound. He nearly went into shock when the client said he used a Rode NT1 mic for every track and some cheap Fostex stand alone recorder with pres in it that were probably not even in the same league as the Mackie pres! Totally debunked the expensive mic and pre myth.

If you are careful you can set even an average Mic pre to be right in the most linear part of its range and it wont come anywhere near clipping as this guy obviously did. The music and the performance was just so good it out shone the mikes and the pre by miles. 

I have produced many albums that involved expensive mics and Mackie pres (1604, older model even)  and the result: magnificent. I have also produced albums using expensive mics and expensive pres and the result: still magnificent.  Was it ten times better than the first case, absolutely not in fact no one here would pick the difference I am totally confident of that.

As Bill sez, a good, high-gain (but I repeat myself) preamp can give you a lot of freedom when recording.  Maybe not that guitar amp set to 11 or a drummer that plays like a weightlifter, but in a lot of other circumstances it can help.

But the mics the thing wherein to catch a ... sound.  Many times an small diameter condenser is best for an acoustic guitar w/ a lot of nuances.  Sometimes a LCD for that big sound.

Glad you are taking the time to find what sounds best to you.

@

"I would rather a handful of expensive mikes and use the Mackie VLZ as the pres any day over a bunch of average mics and a whole lot of expensive pres. The former will sound way better by miles."




I would rather have a couple really good mic pres and some ok mics... I think you get better sound that way.

I started by slowly buying what many would call nice or expensive mics while using ok pre amps. Now I have nice pre amps and am learning that I really had no idea what a nice mic was.

I'm starting to get in to really nice mics... the benefits of which you can not enjoy without a really nice preamp.

In the meantime I have come to form an opinion that I would have benefited from owning a really good mic pre amp before thinking I knew what a really good mic was.

That's just my personal perspective which is the result of my personal journey.

I really think I should have gotten at least one great pre amp before collecting mics. The awareness of how it worked out for me causes me to make mention of this when I see other opinions expressed so forcefully.

So, my list would look like this:

1     Great piece of Music  
2     Guitar performance  
3     Guitar 
4     Mic Pre 
5     Microphone
6     A to D conversion

I think mic placement doesn't quite fit on the list in an orderly fashion as I consider that with regards to several factors on that list.

I do admit that appreciating the good mic pre will not happen instantly... it takes years of thoughtful listening to understand what great mic pres do that the pretty good ones can't... and that's the same for microphones too. A funny thing happens, once you get used too and learn what the good stuff sounds like, the way the other stuff sounds like sticks out like a sore thumb. 

I go back and forth between different grades of mix and match gear in my location recording work. I get reminded of this frequently.

Anyways, just throwing out some ideas to balance the discussion.


all the best,
mike

So....it's all subjective and there's no definitive right or wrong. 

I do have dedicated mic pres.  I have different ones for different reasons.  some for the color they provide, some for the clean gain and headroom.

I have different mics, tho I mostly gravitate to one or two in particular.

Great comments everyone!


Ive often considered making an SOP (Standard Op) folder to write down what mics, and the entire chain, setup and mic placement for each type of recording whether its an Acoustic, Electric guitar, drum, etc...  

I imagine those that do this on a daily basis have their procedures memorized with what equipment to use for what circumstances.  I cant imagine the number of possibilities there are in a professional setup and to have to keep up with them all-WOW

Thanks so much for the inputs  

Jeff Evans


I do appreciate Reece's humor and I am sorry for sounding too serious. 

The only part that rings true for is the first line of Bills post...You really do need better microphones. The rest I don't agree with at all. 

It's a free country... and I already disagreed with you<G>!

I am pretty sure Bill and many other Mic Pre lovers would probably have a hard time in a very controlled A/B blind test. Even the standard Mic pre in a lot of mixers are pretty good these days. They offer low distortion, high headroom, low noise etc..Very transparent sound etc..The Pres in the VS700R are very nice and I don't doubt the ones in the new Studio Capture would also be very very nice too.

I'll take that bet - with one stipulation... that the user is not a seasoned professional.


It is true that if you operate an inexpensive microphone preamplifier in it's optimal range it'll demonstrate very low noise and distortion - the old wire with gain. That also requires proper interfacing to the devices before and after the microphone preamplifier.


You won't have any of the 'colorful' effects you get from some designs, but that is not always the goal.


BUT... if you are just starting out then I'd argue that you need equipment that does not get in your way. If I had a nickel for every recording I've heard that was diminished because the combination of equipment used and user was not quite up to the task I could buy myself a nice John Hardy microphone preamplifier<G>! Which more-or-less jibes with you basic assertions, or rather the assertions of the SOS shootout (which they insist is not a shootout<G>!)


I know now to listen all the way through to make sure that I am not exceeding the limits of reasonable performance when using equipment I am not familiar with. I didn't always!


And just because a newer user's ears and/or monitoring environment are not up to the task of revealing/recognizing subtle differences does not mean they do not exist!


Just for the record, my priorities would be:
1) great song
2) great performance
3) great instruments properly set up
4) everything else

But that last part can be a bear!!!!

My priorities would be:

1. Great sounding room, properly treated
2. Great song, well arranged & rehearsed
3. Great performance
4. Well set up, tuned instruments
5. Suitable microphone/pre-amp combination. To my mind if one is of lower quality than the other, the lower quality item will trump the better one.
6. Good monitoring

Yes all interesting stuff. Mike's post got me thinking about how I got into and when I started using quality Mic Pres. We all enter into this in a slightly different way I guess. I started with great microphones first and working with what we are calling normal or less expensive pres. I was always happy with the results I was hearing.

Then later got into nice pres too and yes I fully appreciate how they sound and what they do. I just found there was not such a massive difference from the first case scenario I was involved in.

Another thing to take on board and here is where the old fashioned types are going to get their knickers in a knot is the concept of recording through transparent mic pres and then start using plugins later in the scheme of things to add the sound or the colour. Anyone who thinks this cannot be done is simply wrong and living in the dark ages. This is going to blur the edges even further between real hardware and software in terms of the final sound in your mix.

Yamaha has got some rather amazing analog emulation stuff built into their 01V96i mixer all based on Rupert Neve designs and even Rupert himself has admitted how incredible and accurate they sound and these are based on Mic Pres, compressors and EQ circuits.

If I had nothing and was starting out buying gear an expensive Mic Pre might not be such a good idea and not represent the best value for money. But if you are well set up already then it could be a good time to add something like that. 

An SM57 going through an expensive Mic pre is not going to give you the acoustic guitar sound you may be after. But an affordable condenser mic going through a reasonable Mic Pre will seriously nail it. Big difference there, you cannot argue with that. 

I don't agree with Bristol's version of the list of importance either. Sorry mate but the room is not important at all. I once recorded Frank Gambale playing an acoustic guitar in a crappy room with an SM57. Result: Breath taking. Why? Because it was Frank playing the guitar on the other end! The room made no difference, you did not even hear the room. (Frank is one of the best acoustic guitarists in the world) And beside as you get closer to the instrument the room factors less and less. The room sound is somewhere down with the Mic and placement. 

I don't agree with Mike's list order of importance as the signal flow dictates the Mic comes before the Pre. The Pre does not come before the Mic so, Mic first then Pre Mike.