stratman70


Edit: I am talking about for Vocals ONLY mic pre
 
OK- I have very good mic Studio Projects C-1-as I always prefe=ace it is one of the 1st 100 made-supposedly top notch back then. 
Anyway-as far as mic pres I have the Mackie vlz3 - which I have read are very similar to the Ecxho Layla3G mic pres. Which I also have. And finally I have the Octa capture 8 mic pres.
 
Being a player formost I don't hear much difference between vocals recorded using each of the mic pres mentioned.
 
I could spend from $300 to $500 about for one ext mic pre.
 
Would I be just side grading or is there something in that range that will make a difference I can hear? I tried redeaching google but just coud not get a definitive answer-maybe there isn't one.
 
Or is just a better mic the option?
Thanks again
 
Thanks

I'm using a dbx376 channel strip and have been very happy with the results.  I did swap out the stock 12AX7 valve for a jj long-plate 12AX7, but even with the stock tube I thought it sounded great with a bunch of my  mics.

It has a built in 3-band eq, compressor and desser (all of which you can opt to not use).  Three ins, instrument on the front and a line-in and XLR in on the back.  It has 4 outs SPDIF, AES/EBU, XLR & 1/4".  It also has a SPDIF/AES ins for getting clock to the unit as well as a coax-clock-in.  I don't remember what I paid for this in 2005, but they go for around $550 street price.

FWIW, the sound quality on this device was very noticeable above some of the other lower-end PREs I've tried and even sounds better than the Motu 8Pre's, on vocals.

Hi folks,
Just some more information regarding mic pres. This thread got me interested in doing some A/B tests so this morning I took the most neutral and precise mics that I own (a matched pair of Earthworks SDC's) and set them next to one another on a stand. I then ran one to my Great River pre and one to my Sebatron. You can see what it looks like here (ignore the LDC in that shot...I was using it for something else):

http://www.fade.net/EW-mics.jpg

The GR is a Neve style pre and the Sebatron is a tube pre. I then sang a couple phrases into the mics and A/B'd them. For both pre's I pushed the input gain pretty hard to try and highlight differences (but certainly not harder than I would for doing actual production work).

A couple observations:

1. They are very different. The Sebatron has a lot more low end information and harmonic content, while the GR has some content at about 1.5k that makes vox cut through a bit but also can result is sounding a bit nasal (on my voice particularly).

2. Unexpectedly (to me at least), the volumes are very different. I peak normalized both tracks to .1 db higher than the loudest peak in the louder track and the interesting part is that the quieter parts still show 3db(!) of difference. That is, both tracks now peak at exactly -8.0db, which I thought would result in the quieter parts being fairly closely matched, but they aren't at all. The tube pre is almost displaying some compression characteristics, but I suspect the actual difference is the amount of low frequency information present in the output from the tube pre is causing the quiet parts to have more energy.

In any case, with regards to the SOS article and not really being able to tell the difference between different preamps, or Mike's observation that it takes a really great singer to really tell, that's quite different than the results I got this morning in this application. OTOH, I am a singer, so maybe the difference I hear between the pre's means I am a GREAT singer, even first thing in the morning and when I'm not really trying! Yeah...I'm a great singer....that's my story and I'm sticking to it :)

If anyone wants to hear my comparison let me know and I'll throw it up on the web so you can D/L it and hear for yourself.

Dean

I have an ART MPA II Reference Series Tube mic pre. Dual channel, adjustable impedance, low cut filter, adjustable plate voltage, phase, mid/side and stereo recording. I paired it with a stereo ART Pro VLA II Tube Compressor.

I have zero regrets. I've used ART products for a long time. I bought their first rack mount guitar effects processor back in the mid 80's. Pic Here. It was a full fledged stereo sampler, with dozens of effects, distortion, midi controlled.

The way I look at it is ... putting a $1500 dollar mic pre in a home studio is like putting a Cadillac engine in a Volkswagen Bug. You can do it, and it has been done ... but what's the point? It looks cool?

The Low Cut filter, Impedance adjustment, and Plate Voltage on the MPA II (or any unit for that matter) are going to have a far greater effect on the sound you are going to capture in a project studio than going between different units IMO.

Dean,

you probably are a great singer - so lay that aside.  Different preamps sound different, just like mics.  They have different eq plots.  Ideally, they shouldn't, but there you go.  However, these differences aren't blatent - in that one will sound great and the next like crap.  Put different mics and preamps up and you are likely to get a reasonable facimile of whatever you are recording.  Don't we all start out this way?  And it works.

What works better is tailoring your equipment to the recording situation at hand.  If you back off a dynamic mic through a mackie preamp, you might not get enough volume or too much noise.  Do the same w/ an api (or GR or Sebatron) and it sounds just right.  Same w/ what you are recording.  A male voice in your example above might benefit from more low end in one song, but in the next busy mix some cut (w/o the nasel) might work better.  If you are familiar w/ you tools and techniques you might choose the appropriate preamp.  Or you could use eq, which works well, but we all know that capturing the right sound at the source is the best way and is the reason engineers get paid.

The SOS article/test was a good one, appolgies to Mike, in that it attempted to put all the preamps tested into a rather general and sterile recording situation.  And guess what, all the equipment sounded fine.  But didn't tell the whole story (see above).

For many, the cost of higher end stuff isn't justified by the returns.  They might not be able to tell the difference between a built-in preamp and a gob-smacking one because their monitoring system doesn't really shine on the difference or the ears can't differentiate the difference or some other reason.  But record the same song in a pro studio w/ a pro engineer and the home recordist will wonder why they can't sound like that. 

But there isn't really a question to someone new to recording whether they should buy a typical interface or spend that money on a good preamp w/ no way to record it except through their on-board card.  At the same time, there are plenty of home recordists w/o a bunch of outboard that do great sounding recordings.  Better equipment won't have too great of an impact on their sound, tho I bet it makes it easier and quicker to get outstanding product.  It is the ears that make the difference.

High end gear, used correctly, makes a difference.  A small but decernable difference.  The bigger difference is made by judgement augemented by experience.  If you can't afford that mega buck channel, it doesn't mean you can't make good, in fact, great recordings.  But it does give that last bit of shine and ease to production and allows you to make recording decisions based upon positive, not negative choices.

@

I agree with Bub but only because he lives in KC.

Seriously though, I agree with Bub that the Art stuff is really good on a budget. Also the GAP73 is a killer preamp for the money. These should be in any home studio.

Regarding that SOS article, I frankly don't think it was accurate or used what I would consider long-term pros in the business to discern but I listened to the files and here is my comment. They used a Disclavier and Realpiano as the sound source; not as dynamic as a vocalist mic'd a bit closer to diaphragm or frequency centric as a vocalist would provide. I walked away from that article thinking almost any preamp would work...for piano. I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that an Art preamp is just as good as a Neve 1073 based on that test however. On a variety of sources, especially a vocalist, not even close. I use a Neve Portico 5012 for most vocals after testing a lot of low end preamps and there is no comparison what a Great River, Portico, Daking, Martech et al bring to the table for vocals. If you want a more vocal oriented preamp which is a notch higher on my review scale than a Great River or the the Portico then I recommend the Daking Mic Pre One. I was in a small studio in Hollywood and we shot out a 1073, Great River, my Portico and the Daking. The Daking held its own and at $795, made it the stand out value.

One other note about preamps, in the Hollywood test above, each preamp won at some point primarily based on the tonal characteristics of the singer. Also depending on the mic, it showed completely different characteristics. Sorry to say, it's a matching game between the sound source, microphone and the preamp. There are only a few go to combinations you come across which work on almost everything. Neumann u47/48>Neve 1073/1083 is a first chain for a lot of pros. But there are many more thankfully because few of us have $15-$20k for a mic/preamp combination.

AT


Yes, more money on preamps will make a difference - but it is subtle, not striking.  But it does add up.  The biggest difference is in gain, so that you can make better mic placement choices, backing off from the source, getting more air or room.  A good preamp is well worth having for solo and overdubs.

As far as the SOS test - I wouldn't expect there to be much differerence using mic preamps in a general setting.  The differences show up more when pushing the mic preamps, using them for their stregnths.  Again, not night and day or "it was like lifting a veil of my sound."  At first, you might not even notice it.  But your ear will figure it out.  Also, the lowest common denominator in your system will hold down the difference.  But once you do start to hear it, it is there.  You can hear deeper into the individual sounds captured, you can hear the little hairs on sound, you can feel them on the saturation.  And then you start using that knowledge to better place your mics.

Unless you have unlimited money or are in the business selling studio bling, it doesn't make sense to spend thousands on a vintage Neve module or something.  If you want a good all-arounder w/ a touch of transformer goodness the ISA One is a classic Neve design.  And it has lots of singer-songwriter tricks.  My favorite new preamp these days is the warm audio.  As noted above, based upon the classic api 312, which you've heard on tons of albums - as well as CDs.  Thick but still punchy sound, tons of headroom.  Works very well to give an analog ... roundness and heft to digital recording.  You can get either of those for $400-500 and is a tool you won't have to get rid of when you hit the bigtime and afford the old neves, etc.

Razor - I've got the 1/2 rack Warm audio preamp here at home.  Like I said above, it is good stuff.  We shot it out at a friend's studio against his "real" api's and, if there was a difference, is was a thin red hair.  Good components, good build.  I'm sure Bryce's api slot units are as well built tho I haven't heard them.  I am waiting on his next preamp, which is the wa12 but with, I think, a clean mode that takes the transfomer out of the circuit.  anyway, it is supposed to be the same and different.

@

Some of your response reminds me of how I was tryin in simple (guitar rocker" terms) to explain about the difference between the Mackie and the roland OCtacapture pres. The Octa capture was a much more full bodied-robust sound while the Mackies were my reg gotta eq and compress and all the rest to get the fullness. So The Roland OCtacapture pres are obviously better made or better suited for my my "loud" vocal - I have a very strong voice.The mic pres, MAckie to Octaxcapture I truly mean it's thin to full big time. Never would have realized it if I didn't get the Roland.
 
@ MikeMQ: I am a great singer-always played guitar but also was pushed to sing lead in every band I have ever been in. Bummed me out because in my eyes I wanted to be the guitar player. Think of my voice as if Bob Seger and Roy Orbison were merged in some sci fi machine and came out with major traits of each complimmeting each other. The Rocker-Crooner monster appears.
 
Genmtleman:
 
I asked these questions here because I knew I would get great answers(for the most part) I wish I could better describe the difference between the mackie and roland micpres. More headroom and full bodied are the only laymans terms that come to mind.
But these 2 words are HUGE in this snse-with everyting else being equal and I am the vocalists this is what I have determined after many, many tracks.
 
No I must find a way to implement the Octacapture as a mic pre only due to personal routing options I must have (Home Studio, remember)
Hopefully I can do this.
 
Thanks for all the wonderful and thought envoking information.
 
Forum at it's best right here-IMHO

Yes top quality stuff, very clean and tons of gain...but that is to be expected on the API mock-up...the thing anyone should consider when dishing out money at this price point is that there are no "generic" pre-amps in the boutique market (or 500 series for that matter)...everything in this range serves a flavor...so its kind of important to pick your flavor, the Great River stuff is very Nevish, the Neve stuff is too!...

The guys at WARM are doing what I like, giving top shelf gear at a reasonable price...

API is really pretty good on vox (most but surely not all) some female vox and many male in the API just don't gel...but thats true of the Neve sounding or the SSL sounding, or whatever...

Razorwit


Hi Psychobillybob,
Have you heard any of the Warm Audio stuff? I've been looking at their 500 series modules for a little bit and have been curious....

Dean

AT


Dean,

you probably are a great singer - so lay that aside.  Different preamps sound different, just like mics.  They have different eq plots.  Ideally, they shouldn't, but there you go.  However, these differences aren't blatent - in that one will sound great and the next like crap.  Put different mics and preamps up and you are likely to get a reasonable facimile of whatever you are recording.  Don't we all start out this way?  And it works.

What works better is tailoring your equipment to the recording situation at hand.  If you back off a dynamic mic through a mackie preamp, you might not get enough volume or too much noise.  Do the same w/ an api (or GR or Sebatron) and it sounds just right.  Same w/ what you are recording.  A male voice in your example above might benefit from more low end in one song, but in the next busy mix some cut (w/o the nasel) might work better.  If you are familiar w/ you tools and techniques you might choose the appropriate preamp.  Or you could use eq, which works well, but we all know that capturing the right sound at the source is the best way and is the reason engineers get paid.

The SOS article/test was a good one, appolgies to Mike, in that it attempted to put all the preamps tested into a rather general and sterile recording situation.  And guess what, all the equipment sounded fine.  But didn't tell the whole story (see above).

For many, the cost of higher end stuff isn't justified by the returns.  They might not be able to tell the difference between a built-in preamp and a gob-smacking one because their monitoring system doesn't really shine on the difference or the ears can't differentiate the difference or some other reason.  But record the same song in a pro studio w/ a pro engineer and the home recordist will wonder why they can't sound like that. 

But there isn't really a question to someone new to recording whether they should buy a typical interface or spend that money on a good preamp w/ no way to record it except through their on-board card.  At the same time, there are plenty of home recordists w/o a bunch of outboard that do great sounding recordings.  Better equipment won't have too great of an impact on their sound, tho I bet it makes it easier and quicker to get outstanding product.  It is the ears that make the difference.

High end gear, used correctly, makes a difference.  A small but decernable difference.  The bigger difference is made by judgement augemented by experience.  If you can't afford that mega buck channel, it doesn't mean you can't make good, in fact, great recordings.  But it does give that last bit of shine and ease to production and allows you to make recording decisions based upon positive, not negative choices.

@

Hi AT,
Could not agree more with your analysis (especially the part about me being a great singer...I'm all about the affirmations this morning ). 


Truth is, I'm in a purpose-built, treated room using pretty good mics, a Lynx Aurora 16 and monitoring with Focals. Pretty much all of those make more of a difference than the mic pre (maybe with the exception of the converters). My experiment this morning was really to see (after controlling for other factors as much as I could) how much of a difference there was between a couple of the preamps I own. Do I think that one was better or worse? Not at all...as you said, it's really what works better for what application. I was, however, surprised as the amount of difference, particularly with regards to dynamics, but also frequency. Enough so that I thought it might be interesting to talk about here and demonstrate if anyone wants to hear it as well. But that certainly does not change the accuracy of your points above. My experiment was essentially done in a vacuum, and real recordings aren't 


Dean

I've been messing with recording since I had a Teac 2340 when I was 18 as a hobby and semi professionally. I'm now 55. I love music and recording it. I always thought that I lacked that "golden ear" thing and to an extent, I probably do. But it always gives me some relief to read an article like the mic pre comparison in the October Sound on Sound mag. In a blind test, industry professionals chose a $200 Art mic pre over other more expensive pres. I believe that there's a lot of placebo effect in our hobby/business. "It has to be expensive to be good. If the pres you have sound good to you, then they are good.

 
I would mark your post as "helpful" if I could. Whatever works... works and if it cheaper and works well that is really good (at least my wife seems to think so ).
 
I want a fethead but am biding my time until I "need" it.
 
J

Context is important in all of this...a pre-amp is only as valuable as its place in the general scheme of things, ie: If you are only recording a voice and a guitar, the pre may have very little (almost negligible) difference since the EQ it creates (yes they all capture this in different ways, hence the flavor of certain pre-amps) will be matched by the instrument used (vox vs stringed instrument)...

If however you are recording a lot of stuff, bass, keys, BGV, horns, percussion, synths, etc...then the EQ space gets filled up by the same treatment done by the same pre-amp...and THIS makes a huge difference when you go to try and create space in the mix...it just isn't there no matter how you tweak it...because the original point of capture "veneered" everything the same...

This is the point of major console approach...each channel lets the engineer cut/boost/tweak the particular channel to eliminate or create the space he will need in the future mix as they track it...

But again it is context...with just a few things in the mix...the preamp is not as critical...heck you can get away without a preamp if your levels all match...but if you are having difficulty trying to mix stuff together then the recording stage may be the issue...


Not every dish needs garlic, some need butter, some need cinnamon...pre-amps are basically sautes for the mix...if you are cooking everything in the same pan they won't be noticed...but if you are making a dish that requires significant flavor a pre-amp is very useful.