Preamps big deal? nah...

[DirkB]

Ok, so this evening I finally had some time to do a little testing and after my preamp lust got triggered I decided to do some comparisons between my TG2, BAE312a's and Yamaha DM1000 preamps.

I miced my drumkit with a matched pair of Josephson C42's in ORTF, a D112 on close kick and a SM57 on snare.
I did some comparisons with the TG2 on overheads and 312's on kick and snare and vice versa, I recorded the 4 channels with DM1000 preamps only and I did the first test (overheads TG2, kick and snare 312's) with the preamps output routed also into the DM1000 preamps with no gain added, just to see what routing the line level signals through the desk preamps and AD inputs would do.

I also did a test with a Royer R-121 through all of the preamps (so 3 recordings) as a room mic on drums where I needed some more gain).

Converters are the DM1000 stock converters for all tests. These are the only one I use and I have done some serious albums with them. They might not be Apogee, but they certainly are WAY better than the older 02r series converters. I'm monitoring through the DM1000 DA converter into Adam S3a speakers.

Results?

Well, I can describe very detailed what I heard and there certainly are differences, but my conclusion is that it's splitting hairs... .

On overheads the TG2 adds a little nice upper mid harmonics, but nothing I would not be able to get with a dB at 3-5K or so...
The 312 has a touch deeper lowend, but nothing a touch of 50-70Hz couldn't fix on the TG2. On snare the 312 has the most meat and the TG2 a little more sizzle, again splitting hairs here.
The Dm1000 preamps held up pretty well and sometimes I couldn't even notice the difference. With the 4 mics up and a little eq here and there the 4 Dm1000 tracks lacked a little of the "quality" (depth, focus) of the other tracks.

Routing the line level, preamplified tracks (from the TG2 and 312's) into the mic input of the DM1000 with no gain added, was interesting. When putting these tracks out of phase with the 4 other tracks, there was almost complete cancellation, i.e. going through the DM1000 preamps without adding any gain had virtually no impact...

With the R-121 the results were suprisingly comparable. I had expected more of a difference since I added something like 30-40dB of gain. Again, it was possible to identify the different preamps, but I bet on this test, I could easily fool a lot of trained ears .

Now, compare those difference to moving the close kick or snare mic AN INCH and these differences are WAY bigger... Or change the D112 to a U195, WAY more difference, complete different tone.

So, you could put some remarks to my testing:
- my ears are shit
- my room sucks
- the converters used suck
- I should have used better mics
- should have recorded different sources
- etc.

But I know what I'm hearing and I just wanted to share my opinion. Yes, with quality preamps some depth, dimension, "quality to take eq" is added, but if I compare the difference in for example the 312 and TG2 and then look at what a different compressor or a good analogue eq or a different mic does to a signal, it's a magnitude more impact...

What now? Well I think my gearlust will convince me that the problem is in my ad converters and I should finaly add some Lavry's or AD16X's to my setup and I probably will sometime in the future. But for now I think I'll shift my attention to some more cool mics, a CL1B and a Purple 1176 clone and perhaps some API eq's.

Greetings,
Dirk

[audiomichael]

I don't think you are crazy. Your results sound pretty ballpark to me. I've heard some excellent recordings on crappy gear, and some shiit recordings on very expensive gear. But when then right gear comes together in the right combination of performance and inspiration, the sound goes to another level. In other words, I think all of those 1% improvements start to add up.

[NathanEldred]

Tests like this don't mean anything for my purposes. Specifically the 'hear it by itself' A/B. Add vocals, the rest of the drums, guitars, keys, bass, etc and then the decision becomes much more clear IME. The way one finds out real differences between all types of gear is when mix time comes. Then the boys seperate from the men. Even two pieces that are both on the same level 'quality-wise'...one can be ultimately easier to use and fit into the sonic pocket so to speak. I know there is a whole opinion that a record can be made with one type of quality preamp, and yes it can, but from my own experience when you get down to the nitty gritty and choices are very refined, it's almost a pull up the faders situation with less overall EQ utilized (and sometimes EQ can't fix the problem that's bugging me about a particular mic or preamp....mixing other peoples stuff often proves this point). Although YMMV.

[lucey]

the pre amp has a color that makes a record be one thing or another on that level, and pres gets things closer to where they'll blend in a mix. but i agree, the mic and the placement are still the bigger factors by far. Source, mic/placment, pre.


in this case, a 312 and the TG2 are not as different on drums with those mics than say a ribbon mic using 2 pres with different impedances ( one transformer based and one solid state) on a guitar cab.

a low ohm high gain tube pre like the Altec 1567A on a ribbon mic vs. other pres is hugely different IME. Harmonic smear and weight and all kinds of things come to light that cant be eq'd or effected in a mix. In this example even the TG2 is WAY different, anything is WAY different. Not the eq ... the entire sound.

Vocals with a great mic would make things WAY more different as well. Drums with Neve or API vs. clean pres like Millenia would be huge.

Converters as well ... a big ro******* to the subtleties.

but if you're happy, youre happy!

[dokushoka]

Now, compare those difference to moving the close kick or snare mic AN INCH and these differences are WAY bigger... Or change the D112 to a U195, WAY more difference, complete different tone.

YES YES YES! Why is everyone so gear obsessed now a days? If the kick sounds like pooh, buying a better pre is just going to better reveal that the kick sounds like pooh. Learning how to better select heads, beaters (wood, felt, cork, etc) and mastering tuning the damn thing are going to help WAY more.

Thank you for posting your findings. I wish more people would do this!

[DirkB]

Originally Posted by lucey

the pre amp has a color that makes a record be one thing or another on that level, and pres gets things closer to where they'll blend in a mix. but i agree, the mic and the placement are still the bigger factors by far. Source, mic/placment, pre.


in this case, a 312 and the TG2 are not as different on drums with those mics than say a ribbon mic using 2 pres with different impedances ( one transformer based and one solid state) on a guitar cab.

a low ohm high gain tube pre like the Altec 1567A on a ribbon mic vs. other pres is hugely different IME. Harmonic smear and weight and all kinds of things come to light that cant be eq'd or effected in a mix. In this example even the TG2 is WAY different, anything is WAY different. Not the eq ... the entire sound.

Vocals with a great mic would make things WAY more different as well. Drums with Neve or API vs. clean pres like Millenia would be huge.

Converters as well ... a big ro******* to the subtleties.

but if you're happy, youre happy!

Yeah, makes sense and I have had situations where the differences between preamps are definitely not small. For example, the TG2 kills on dirt guitars...
And I'm definitely not saying here to not use quality preamps. The difference on a complete song definitely adds up, but that's because of the depth, focus and dynamics of a solid preamp, not necessarily the little differences in tone or the fact that the API is a little darker than the TG2...

But all these differences in coloured preamps are a little overrated I guess. I think I will end up with a rack full of 312's and a Apogee AD16x. Then perhaps something really clean and that'll do fine.

Greetings,
Dirk

[not_so_new]

How very Williman Wittman of you...

thumbsup

He would be proud.

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

YES YES YES! Why is everyone so gear obsessed now a days? If the kick sounds like pooh, buying a better pre is just going to better reveal that the kick sounds like pooh. Learning how to better select heads, beaters (wood, felt, cork, etc) and mastering tuning the damn thing are going to help WAY more.

You're right, but being that we are in 'hi-end' I would think it to be appropriate that we should make the assumption that all the sources (instrument/singer/room) are at a minimum above average or much better. That way we are getting down to what many people consider hair splitting (like the differences between two great preamps). I remember the first API and Neve that I rented from a local guy here. He couldn't or wouldn't tell me 'where' to use each one on drums...'they both sound good'. I sure as heck had a preference and didn't find them to sound good when their roles were reversed. I was actually a little weirded out that he didn't have a preference (did he have wood ears?).

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by audiomichael

In other words, I think all of those 1% improvements start to add up.

100 % Agree

[2Low]

We did a little shootout a few weeks ago:
Behringer Mic-200 ( a 55 Euro pre ), SPL Goldmike, Tubetech MP 1A, TL Audio C1.
the source was a ( detuned ;-) Bösendorfer Piano - U87 - straight into ProTools HD - Genelec 1031 monitors.
The differences were near-inaudible.
But when I listen to the samples at listeningsession.com,
i can clearly make out the API, Great River or John Hardy " colors ".
So maybe we did something wrong during our shootout or these four preamps sound almost the same ....

[u b k]

Originally Posted by dokushoka

Why is everyone so gear obsessed now a days? If the kick sounds like pooh, buying a better pre is just going to better reveal that the kick sounds like pooh. Learning how to better select heads, beaters (wood, felt, cork, etc) and mastering tuning the damn thing are going to help WAY more

all very true.

but once you get that drum dialed, the right pre will give it that extra inch of mojo that, in the context of the mix, lifts it from "drum sounds good" to "drum kicks my @ss".

in a game of inches, where the accumulation of inches across a project adds up to a big fat yard, it pays to be a little obsessed. as long as things get done and the music flows, the pursuit of those tiny differences results in small miracles.

the fact that other considerations make a larger impact does not negate the importance of the smaller details. many of us are after that elusive last 5%, the thing that elevates a production to world class, and that last 5% can only be had .25% at a time.


gregoire
del ubik

[kats]

It's hair splitting fer sure...but it certainly adds up. When your going for a particular sound or vibe for an album you need the whole recipe. From instrument to mic to pre etc. The end results can have quite an emotional impact. A/bing single tracks doesn't tell the story.

Lenny Kravitz is a good example, that extra 5-10% really creates that vibe on his albums (IMO of course)

[kevinc]

The other thing about pres is of course how quickly or slowly they react to sounds and other factors that you couldn`t necessarily EQ in.

If a pre has a super slow slew rate it`s definately going to react different than something speedy on say drums for example. Some pres will literally sound as if they`re compressing a sound a bit for example. They react to transients different.

So there is something to the argument that you may want to use different pres for drums and vocals and other stuff depending on what your going for. Maybe you want something that will make the vocal super smooth sounding but a quicker pre that reacts to drum hits well.

But I also agree with the argument that you really can`t go wrong with 20 channels or so of API or Neve or what have you and nothing else. Any pre that sounds good on EVERYTHING can obviously be used for a whole album. Why the hell not.

I don`t really buy that theory that if you use too much of the same pre you get some kind of preamp "haze" or buildup over the whole thing that makes the mix murky or something. Different instruments maintain their own identity and freq range despite the preamp used and I don`t see how a pre could make them all sound too much alike so you couldn`t get a decent mix out of all them.

In other words a snare out of a Neve sounds different enough than a guitar out of a Neve that the 2 sounds shouldn`t mess with each other any more than if the guitar were recorded with an API.

[absrec]

I would definitely say that preamps are important. They can color the sound. I'm certainly not the "tweakiest" when it comes to hearing suddle differences between pieces of gear. Sometimes I feel like my AKG C414s sound like SM57s with a little more high and low end. I do agree that all of the small differences tend to add up to a bigger one. But it also depends on what you're going for. What style of music are you playing? The thing I've always found with drums is you have to hit them a certain way, tune a certain way, dial them in a certian way, and if you trying to record yourself with headphones and then tweak according to the playback, It'll be a while. The fact is, it's not your converters, it's not your gear. I don't know what your room sounds like, but unless it's just awful, that's probably not the issue, either. The gear you're using is fine. I own (and adore) a rack of BAE Avedis modules and they are hands down the best pre I've ever heard on drums. Also, bass, acoustic gtr, vox, you name it. Sometimes I have to turn the eq backward, forward, and sideways to get something to sound right. Sometimes, I don't even turn it on. I have pulled my hair out for years trying to figure out how all of these big time guys are cutting and mixing with little to no eq. Then one day, I got to watch a couple of great engineers turn knobs. And believe me, turn knobs they did! My point with all of this is to get it as good as you can at the source, then do whatever it takes after that to get it to fit right. Those guys that cut huge records get to work in the best sounding rooms in the world, and they get to work with top notch session players, and maybe they're just freakin great! I don't have that luxury. I have a small place that I know. I have a system that took me years to figure out, and I'm still figuring it out. Try not to dwell on what everybody tells you works for them. Chances are, it won't work for you. It never did for me. The best thing you can do is train your ears by listening to as much stuff as you can and sitting behind great engineers not neccesarily watching them, but listening to what they are doing.

[mwagener]

Originally Posted by DirkB

. . . On overheads the TG2 adds a little nice upper mid harmonics, but nothing I would not be able to get with a dB at 3-5K or so...
The 312 has a touch deeper lowend, but nothing a touch of 50-70Hz couldn't fix on the TG2. On snare the 312 has the most meat and the TG2 a little more sizzle, again splitting hairs here. . . .

Dirk, I think that's exactly the point, to get that sound WITHOUT having to use EQ. EQ is always my last resort, especially analog EQ, it seems to "haze" combined sounds, even though I use EQs like the Great River as a creative tool, rather than a fixer.

Originally Posted by DirkB

Now, compare those difference to moving the close kick or snare mic AN INCH and these differences are WAY bigger... Or change the D112 to a U195, WAY more difference, complete different tone.

Agree, but AFTER you select and move those mics into the right position, the preamp gives it the final twist, that extra few %, one doesn't exclude the other.

Originally Posted by DirkB

. . . But I know what I'm hearing and I just wanted to share my opinion. Yes, with quality preamps some depth, dimension, "quality to take eq" is added, but if I compare the difference in for example the 312 and TG2 and then look at what a different compressor or a good analogue eq or a different mic does to a signal, it's a magnitude more impact . . .

Yes, but we are working in a microcosm of improvements, everything adds up. I don't think you would say: "I am going to use this Behringer mic pre, because I can fix it with EQ and a compressor makes way more of a difference" The mic pre is the first unit right after the microphone, if it puts out crap, you are just polishing the proverbial turd.

Originally Posted by DirkB

What now? Well I think my gearlust will convince me that the problem is in my ad converters and I should finaly add some Lavry's or AD16X's to my setup and I probably will sometime in the future. But for now I think I'll shift my attention to some more cool mics, a CL1B and a Purple 1176 clone and perhaps some API eq's.

Greetings,
Dirk

I wouldn't dismiss the importance of a great mic pre (and different ones for different sources) it all adds up, just don't expect a world of difference at that stage\, but it might make the difference of "having" to use EQ or not.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by DirkB

But all these differences in coloured preamps are a little overrated I guess. I think I will end up with a rack full of 312's and a Apogee AD16x. Then perhaps something really clean and that'll do fine.

All API, Neve, Schoeps, Helios ... or a rack of the new Biz (nice 'color'!). A subtle combination of them wont hurt either and you'll have enough variety to not get sick of the tone of any one pre over and over. Even a great sound gets boring.

The GML or Martech are stellar and a clean vox sits well on a rock pre mix.




2 Low I agree with you, those pres are too similar to mean anything much in an A/B.

[Kestral]

Yes, preamps are no big deal. Those idiots like me who spend $$$ to buy Neves are just falling for hype and have been completely ripped off.

[Slipperman]

We routinely use a bunch of pre's to record ANY single instrument(usually, but not always, AFTER the drums are tracked).

Example: A Marshall guitar rig will be set up with a specific head, cabinet and microphone in the chain... and ALL that would be swapped around is a BUNCH of different pre's, all of which are gain scheduled for approximate apples to apples 'steadystate' gain.

Once you get used to doing it... it takes VERY little time to 'hotswap' the various pre's and use the ones most appropriate for the sound that any particular song requires AS yer working.

Do something like this, day in and day out, and I suspect you may develop a different impression about how big of a difference the 'pre-choice' can make in the impact of a recording. ESPECIALLY 'downstream' in mix, as many of these preamp choices often will NOT require any dramatically different EQ. choices and still really help to relieve the dreadful 'sameness' factor across an entire record.

Works the charm in multitracking 'doubles' of the same part in a single song as well.

Just a thought.

Best regards,

SM.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Kestral

Yes, preamps are no big deal. Those idiots like me who spend $$$ to buy Neves are just falling for hype and have been completely ripped off.

Come on now....



In fairness Dirk did not say that any old preamp will do. He said...

Yes, with quality preamps some depth, dimension, "quality to take eq" is added,

I don't think he is knocking the idea of having good pres. I think he is saying that enough good quality pres to cover a session is good but having 100's of different preamps is not cost effective in the grand view (or maybe that is just what I am taking away from it.. )

[dolo]

i think in general mic preamps has come a long way. even the lower budget items sound better than a lot of the non neve, api, trident, harrison, etc,.. desk we used back in the days. and with the higher end stuff the only true difference is subtleties. before we had just a hand full of good sound boards. today there are so many that we can take them forgranted. i personal prefer to have a closet full of microphones and a rack full of great preamps first. second great compressors and eq are last of the three. with the first two are great it limits the need for the third.

furthermore, i think it's all subject to the individual becuase a good preamp is a preamp that gets you the sound and/or coloring you're looking for. whether @$500 or $5,000.

just my two cents though.....

[DirkB]

Thanks for all the replies.

To be clear, I'm a firm believer of quality preamps. If there is something in the chaing that can add depth, dimension and focus, it's a quality preamp. Put a sm57 through a API compared to a mackie and come mix time it's a very signifcant difference. But the difference between for example the TG2 and the BAE312, no matter how you put it, are subtleties. Mind you, I prefer the BAE's on close kick and snare and the TG2 on overheads, but if I had only one of them, it wouldn't matter too much...

Yes, you can very much train your ears to hear these subtle differences and get a feel for the impact at the end of the mix...
But if you spent quite some hours per day or week doing this recording thing, I think it doesn't hurt to once in a while zoom out and get some objectivity back.

Now, let me see, should I fill a 11 space rack with 312's only, or half of it with the new Purple preamps or perhaps get me a box of these SCA preamps with some Neve flavor .

Greetings,
Dirk

[Marcus B]

I find the preamp choice really starts to show its head when you start summing a bunch of tracks together, and as slipperman said when you get into overdub land you can really start to hear the difference a preamp makes by comparison against your other tracks.

Especially with guitars and doubling or even overdubbing parts that are a similar tonality I try and avoid using the same chain to get a bit more contrast to the two parts, often this may be by choosing a different preamp or even running the mic lines through another colour box. My current fave is a fatso with comp disabled, tranny mode enabled and driving the input a little. It just does something that sounds great!

Cheers,
Marcus

[DirkB]

Originally Posted by Marcus B

Especially with guitars and doubling or even overdubbing parts that are a similar tonality I try and avoid using the same chain to get a bit more contrast to the two parts, often this may be by choosing a different preamp or even running the mic lines through another colour box. My current fave is a fatso with comp disabled, tranny mode enabled and driving the input a little. It just does something that sounds great!

Cheers,
Marcus

Agreed, but in this particular case, I'd rather change the guitar amp, or amp settings or the guitar or perhaps use a SM57 instead of a R-121. I use the TG2 preamp and not bother any further...
But yes, especially on dirt guitar, even with a SM57 the difference between for example the 312 and TG2 is quite appearant.

Greetings,
Dirk

[Ruudman]

What I've learned in school today:

* you can make great albums with numerous high quality preamps (outboard)
* you can make great albums with one type of h-q preamps (console)
* you can make albums with any preamp

Often working by myself, I find it easy to use the console's amps.
It's easy to maintain a flow and makes me concentrate on mic placement.

ruudman

[tony666]

Originally Posted by DirkB

Thanks for all the replies.

To be clear, I'm a firm believer of quality preamps. If there is something in the chaing that can add depth, dimension and focus, it's a quality preamp. Put a sm57 through a API compared to a mackie and come mix time it's a very signifcant difference. But the difference between for example the TG2 and the BAE312, no matter how you put it, are subtleties. Mind you, I prefer the BAE's on close kick and snare and the TG2 on overheads, but if I had only one of them, it wouldn't matter too much...

I always find it amusing to read that these expensive preamps give you quality, depth, more dimension, focus ... Isn't sound in analogue electronics only defined by frequencies (phase), amplitude and noice levels? I'm sure they all can sound different, discrete components probably have better noise specs, transformers probably do have a different sound to them. But more depth, dimension, focus etc ...

[DirkB]

Originally Posted by tony666

I always find it amusing to read that these expensive preamps give you quality, depth, more dimension, focus ... Isn't sound in analogue electronics only defined by frequencies (phase), amplitude and noice levels? I'm sure they all can sound different, discrete components probably have better noise specs, transformers probably do have a different sound to them. But more depth, dimension, focus etc ...

Well, try it for yourself and report back .

Record some drums, bass, dirt guitars with say the preamps in the Control 24 (focusrite platinum stuff) and with some 312's or any type of money preamp.

I hear more depth, a stronger center channel and more well defined placement in the stereo field. Also, dynamically it seems as if there is more headroom, e.g. I don't need to compress the kick to keep it from getting to loud occasionally.
Never heard how a certain piece of gear can really tighten up the bottom end, say an eq, without even adjusting any gain?
I'd say do the test yourself and let us know what you think.

Greetings,
Dirk

[tony666]

Originally Posted by DirkB

I hear more depth, a stronger center channel and more well defined placement in the stereo field. Also, dynamically it seems as if there is more headroom, e.g. I don't need to compress the kick to keep it from getting to loud occasionally.
Never heard how a certain piece of gear can really tighten up the bottom end, say an eq, without even adjusting any gain?
I'd say do the test yourself and let us know what you think.

Greetings,
Dirk

Different designs give different sounds. What you like the most is up to you. Preamp nonlinearities can sound pretty amazing but that's not what a classical musician is going to expect from his preamp. I'm pretty sure what you hear in some expensive preamps has more to do with non-linear behaviour, not with "quality" factor.

[DirkB]

Originally Posted by tony666

Different designs give different sounds. What you like the most is up to you. Preamp nonlinearities can sound pretty amazing but that's not what a classical musician is going to expect from his preamp. I'm pretty sure what you hear in some expensive preamps has more to do with non-linear behaviour, not with "quality" factor.

I judge the quality by the endproduct, i.e. what I hear. If non linearities, distortion or even noise are needed to get me depth and focus, then that adds to the "quality" in my opinion. And for another application you might not find that a quality.

Back to topic: if you're playing in Michael's or Slippermans league, than mixing and matching preamps might give you that last piece of the puzzle that was missing. In my league (which I'm going to assume for a moment a lot of us opperate inregularly) someting like a full rack of 312's is more than adequate to get a good job done. And to satisfy the lust, you can throw the flavour du jour (TG2. Portico) and be done with it.

Greetings,
Dirk

[MBishopSFX]

Originally Posted by tony666

I always find it amusing to read that these expensive preamps give you quality, depth, more dimension, focus ... Isn't sound in analogue electronics only defined by frequencies (phase), amplitude and noice levels? I'm sure they all can sound different, discrete components probably have better noise specs, transformers probably do have a different sound to them. But more depth, dimension, focus etc ...

It all depends on what the work at-hand is...

Sure, most studio small group sessions can be recorded perfectly well with just about anything. The hairs you're splitting are pretty damn small at that point. Any 'pro' preamp/mic combo will give varying degrees of great sound and it comes down more to what the musicians are doing as long as you don't screw it up.

However, hi-rez, wide-open preamps and mics are absolutely neccessary when you've got a 100 pc orchestra and 250 voice chorus in a huge acoustic to capture - and in surround to DSD or hi-rez pcm. In those situations, every component of the chain, right down to cable choice, make HUGE differences in depth, dimension and focus. When you're recording something with that much detail and layers, you'd be amazed at what can make a difference. Taking lessons learned from these situations into the studio for small group work is extremely valuable. As someone else pointed out here, it's only a small change sometimes that takes a recording up a notch to where it really kicks a**.

[mwagener]

Originally Posted by MBishopSFX

. . . The hairs you're splitting are pretty damn small at that point. . . .

Michael, may I rephrase that:
"The hairs you are splitting are the ones standing up on your arm when you listen to the final product".