So here is a test I have performed and it is admittedly flawed, But for me it showed which pre amps in my collection might be the better ones if background S/N is a concern to you. 

in a very quiet room ( turn off CPU ) 

Headphones on. Use headphone jack of equipment @ 2-4 o clock. 
Plug in a SM 57 or ? dynamic mike. 
Later try test with Phantom on and a condenser. 
Turn the pre amp all the way up ( don't let the dog bark at this point) 

M-Audio fast track pro= Very loud  Hiss+ static sound. ( 60Db?) 

Tascam us1641 = A hiss ( 20Db? ) 

Behringer Xenyx mixer Solo the ch. = A louder hiss ( 30 Db?) 

Yamaha 01v digital mixer solo the ch=  a Quieter hiss ( 10Db?) 

So not exactly a pre amp test, more of a noise floor test. But personally I like to not have that kind of thing added to my music.
 
Sure this test also needed a Test tone and output level comparison to be more accurate. But one thing all these devises had in common was that optimum before clipping level would be with gain set at close to 2 o clock. 
At that level the hiss is not as noticeable unless you are looking for it. With the M audio it was very noticeable. 

My 2 cents:  

Get either interface   ... focusrite or the M-audio are fine... I like Focusrite since they have a nice reputation for clean powerful preamps built into the interfaces. 

Buy MC6 if you do not have any "current" DAW software. MC6 is quite amazing, and low priced.

Buy a condenser mic and ditch the SM57.  A condenser mic of decent quality will make a huge difference in the recorded sound quality.  

http://www.gauge-usa.com/...rophones/Products.html   $84 on the low end to $150 for the better one and they have one that is more than that as well. I have heard these mics side by side with mics costing 10x as much and they held their own. 

Keep the 57 for stage and live events, throw out the RS mixer and stop using the on board card. 

For under $400 you can take your music up several notches with these 3 things. Interface, Mic, MC6. 

All my music is recorded with a Focusrite interface (almost 6 years old now) and a Rode condenser on MC 4, 5, 6 or X1.   You decide.

I thought Focusrite pre's were 'irritatingly stressed & grainy'?

Guess I'll have to sell both of mine, now that I've been shown the errors of my ways

That's if any bugger will buy them

"The one thing the SOS test missed was intentionally driving the preamps so you get a little hair on them - specific sounds that we know work, too.  A generic, scientific test just doesn't bring out how artists use the equipment.  Under many circumstances, a interface preamp will sound about as good as the most expensive preamp.  Under certain circumstances the engineering artist uses it won't."


The were 2 other things that SOS article missed:

1) The test samples were all over the map and produced inconsistently... a real waste of time.

2) They didn't actually have a good preamp in the list. They had some cheap stuff and some upper mid range price point stuff... but there was nothing that I'd actually introduce as an example of a truly good sounding preamp.

Having said that I strongly agree that the tests did not explore what the preamps can not do but rather stayed safely within the margins of what a mediocre preamp can get away with. Why bother? I think a more interesting test would be one that demonstrates what they actually do differently.

I think the odds were stacked to create the impression that there is not much difference.

best regards,
mike

I had a thought that Mike might try and debunk the SOS tests. Basically what Mike is saying is not true at all. Firstly I thought they went to great trouble to maintain consistency with regard to the performances using the Disklavier concept.

Trying to do tests by pushing any of the pres into unknown territory would have been ridiculous so keeping them all well within a very linear part of their operation and sound was the right thing to do.

Yes there are small differences between them for sure but overall there are not major differences and my point that you don't need to spend thousands on a good preamp still stands. The fact is that most pres everywhere these days will do a very good job.

An remember the concept of capturing a beautiful performance that moves you emotionally during the playback is really what it is all about. And when this is happening what type of pre that is being used is of absolutely no importance. The tools mean nothing in this situation.

This is what people should be aiming for, not getting all caught up in how good your pre is. Being moved by a great recording transcends everything that comes before it in terms of the technology being used.

Many great performances have been captured on great equipment.

The fact that some have been captured on ok equipment doesn't prove that great equipment doesn't exist.

best regards,
mike

I have never implied that great equipment does not exist. I think we all agree that the ideal situation is a great performance and great equipment. 

But as we all know the better scenario is OK equipment and a great performance will always sound better than an average performance using great equipment. That sucks no matter which way you look at it.

There are plenty of things you can spend your money on that will make a much more significant improvement in your overall sound rather than a very expensive mic pre.

cannelg


Thanks Brando!  I appreciate it.  I will have to use headphones as I don't have "monitors".  Any recommendations on a decent pair that isn't going to kill me?  Also - after reading a lot about them, I am a bit confused.  I used headphones to monitor on my old setup and then mixed using my computer speakers...My mixes got better with time.  I won't be able to use those speakers with the ROland, so I will just use headphones until I can afford monitors.  When I get monitors, can I use them to listen to everything - like normal PC speakers - as well as to mix things I record or are they just for mixing?

Thanks,

Greg

To be fair, for the sort of money you'll have to spend on a decent pair of headphones you might as well get an affordable pair of monitors. ANYTHING is going to be a massive improvement on mixing through computer speakers, and your post implies that you do already own a pair of phones yes?

So track using the the phones and mix using the monitors

And yes, you can use them for listening to anything on your computer

This thread has come a long way since the OP ;-0

I think SOS did a good job.  Using a midi piano took most of the performance issue out of the equation.  But like any musical scientific test, it is an "average" test.  And "proved" that, on average, a basic IC preamp can equal a premium one in average recording.  This is a good thing and something I've noticed before.  And really, by the time you fx a track recording, squeeze it into a mix, convert it to mp3 and have an untrained ear listen to it on earbuds while jogging, alot of the subtle differences get washed out.

This doesn't mean we have to be satisfied w/ interface IC preamps w/ 55 dB of gain.  And SOS (esp. Hugh) is often all the travel of knobs not being equal - the last 10 dB of gain out of the 55 is bunched in the last twist.  We pay more for more gain, closer tolerances for knob travel, and better (read pricey) electronics.  That means we can use the preamps more artistically, makes our life easier and is what we do.  It doesn't mean Joe Average w/ a low price interface can't record a good take.  It does mean the room and mike and technique make more of a difference.  Poor Joe will have to learn to use his equipment, and if or when ready will spend the bucks to upgrade his working enviornment. 

So kudos for SOS proving this fact - most modern recording equipment is pretty good.  Better than what I learned on back when dinosaurs roamed the earth w/ badly aligned tape machines and vintage IC preamps that crapped out if you even looked at turning them up.  I still wince at one good song where the singer belted out one line and I got a perfect example of analog distortion - and not the good kind.

As far as mags.  They aren't really for the experts.  Notice all the copies laying in the lobby of most real studios.  The guys behind the SSL know most of what is written in them.   They are for begginers or the semi-pro.  There are good tips and techniques - stuff a lot of people don't learn because they aren't teaboys sweeping up the studio, getting yelled at for mispointing the mics while the engineer drinks his tea and watches the set up, but at least the tea boy gets to watch the engineer record and mix using great equipment.  Many learn through articles.

And yes, many mags pay for the articles - how do you get experinced people to take the time and write otherwise?  But I can't imagine a magazine covering up for bad equipment or software.  There have been plenty of examples of music tech writers telling their story - here and at gearslutz and other places I'm not aware of.  And many of these writers have more recording skins on their wall then the complainers on forums who make one post and dissapear into the net ether.  The writers and the mags have far more to lose w/ bad reviews than one advertiser - their audience who pays full price for the mag.  Piss off a few of those w/ wrong reviews and you lose readership everytime.  And advertising rates are based on how many issues you place (not sell, which accounts for all those issues laying around studios and label lounges).

So the next time someone complains about payola in mags, think Yugo.  No publisher wants that, whether it is in music tech, or autos or any tech pub.  You live and die by your rep.

@

Hi all...

So the ROland came in and I am using it but I have a few concerns.  I am using an SM57 mic.  In my old setup it would plug into a Realistic 32-1200B (cheap Radio shack mixer) and that would plug into the LINE IN on the sound card.  I was hoping the Quad Capture would be an improvement on that setup - but - it is far from it.   Is it really possible that the Realistic 32-1200B had better 1/4 mic inputs than this Roland's XLR inputs?  I wish I could describe the difference...when I record on the ROland the trumpet sounds as if it was recorded on an old tape recorder....hard to describe.  The Realistic 32-1200B wasn't as open sounding as I would have liked either, but it was better than this.

Greg