Mic pre amps for home semi pro recording

[fuzzface777]

I am wanting to spend 2600-3200 for a decent mic pre for guitar, and vocals. It would be a bonus if it can apply to bass and drums too. I was initially looking at the Brent Averill 1272 or Vintech's clone. After reading and reading, I saw more ppl preferred the 1073. I am wondering what ppl here prefer: THE PORTICO, THE TANNER GTQ2 OR NEVE's RI 1073???? I think all these all class A. Is there anyone here that prefers class a/b like the 1081? thanks

[fuzzface777]

wow, nobody here knows much about these units??????

[Joost]

The Portico is great and for 3200, you can get 4 channels (2 porticos in 19 inch), and the API 3124+ would be great alternative! And that is not semi pro stuff. This is pro stuff. Also I would definitely get 2 porticos in stead of 1073, a great preamp

[James Lehmann]

Originally Posted by fuzzface777

wow, nobody here knows much about these units??????

Lots of people here know a great deal about these units - have you tried a search?

PS It's the weekend - traffic slows down, Gearslutz live their real-lives for a couple of days!

[beechstudio]

If I had $3200 to spend.....I would look hard at the Wunder PA4.

[fuzzface777]

what is api? apogee?
Is the portico like the 1081 or 1073? Are the Neve 1073 or 1081 RI great or soso?
How does the GTQ2 compare? I am looking one unit for vocals, guitar or anything I will mic to make the sound fuller. I really dig coldplay's mixes, with a great system, the mix really gives a nice dreamy soundscape. I am Rocker, too. I really need my mic pre to work well for mic'ing my Marshall 1967 plexi, and vocals....
I can save about 3500 USD for a mic pre but no more than that. Any thoughts?

[fuzzface777]

btw rick I did a search for wunder, but I couldn't find the site. strange...

[Meriphew]

I would look at the following pres:

API 3124+
Wunder Audio PA4 ( www.wunderaudio.com )
Great River MP-2NV

[fuzzface777]

meriphew, Thanks!

I wonder no one has really supported the chandler Ltd-1 , portico 5012 or the gtq2 or the ams-neve 1073..... strange

[C/G]

There is also the 4ch Daking Mic Pre 4 for $1899 and you have enough left over to buy a used Distressor or ...............

[rlnyc]

Originally Posted by fuzzface777

what is api? apogee?
Is the portico like the 1081 or 1073? Are the Neve 1073 or 1081 RI great or soso?
Any thoughts?

what is api? api is one of the original great console makers along with neve. apis are sought after as great rock preamps and eqs - highly punchy and forward sounding.


apogee? they make convertors. don't think they have entered the preamp market. i could be wrong.


is the portico like the 1081 or 1073? the portico 5012 is like neither, although the portco has a button to introduce 2nd order distortion which it is claimed makes the device sound somewhat like those older offerings. but both 1081 and 1073 contain eq as well as preamp. portico 5012 is a 2 channel preamp only. they have a new one coming with one channel preamp and with eq but as it ships this week i have not heard it. if you ask rupert neve, his new stuff is all better than his old stuff (most designers are going to think that way) but his older preamps are sought after for their amazing euphonic warmth and dimensionality. neve and api are the two most highly thought of, and live in an apples and oranges universe. both are truly great. me, i also think that the portico series is equally great. i have a 5012 (dual preamp) and a 5042 (tape emulator) and use them every day. hope that helps a little

best,
rlnyc

[Yoni]

I think Dakings are one of the most underpriced pres out there. Such a great deal for the quality of sound. And you asked about Chandler - they ROCK.

[TonyBelmont]

Here's a thread regarding the GTQ....

******//www.gearslutz.com/board/showt...highlight=gtq2

[achtung baby]

if i were you, i'd go with a chandler LTD-1 or TG channel. really really fantastic pres coupled with great eqs. i've got one of each and the ltd-1 is my number 1 vocal pre and the TG channel is my number 1 guitar pre. check out one of those.

[fuzzface777]

AS I read more and more and listen to Coldplay's first CD, I realize that the dinosaur Neve consoles [SSL?] were not very open sounding, a little murky but not muddy. If I understand correctly the tanner GTQ2 addresses this issue, bring the sound more open. I read the GtQ2 MK3's eq is top notch but not as good as the 1081. I am surprised that the 1081's eq is often reverred as amazing. Are there any mic pre's with eq's as good as the 1081? THen I see, the 5012 is nly a mic pre no EQ. Is it because the Eq isn't really needed on a mic pre anyway? Eq's can be done on another unit?

I hear great things about ams-neve 1073,1081, brent averill's 1073, 5012, gtq2, wunder, great river, api 3124+, chandler, even focusite but no comparisons are really being attempted, touchy area I guess.....

[fuzzface777]

Thanks for post, helped out because I really am new at all of this ,but I am intense and intent on learning. The rosetta apogee is writtin about a lot, I notice. Is this needed if one buys PT HD-1, and one of these talked about mic pre's?

I will buy a power mac, I want to get PT, a couple mic's and a decent mic pre. Is this everything I need to start saving for to get a nice little home studio guys? Do I need an apogee? Help!

[fuzzface777]

Funny you are from REgina man..... Me too. Well I am trying to be very logical but it is difficult when researching when I don't a clue really yet what the heck everything means... I think I might just get [in future when I am home] a studio like touchwood to record any drums so as to save myself cash yet another mic pre! My main concern is recording vocals and electric guitar. Vocals for the pop or Rock genre or guitar for classic rock Beatles to Hendrix, Black Sabbath Zeppelin, to Van Halen, Nirvana modern Rock. I also want to record guitar in pop /rock from U2, to Coldplay. I guess unless I want to record drums with one one mic as another member here suggested, I would need to buy another pre , something with 4 CH-ouch ! on the pocket book.

[rlnyc]

Originally Posted by fuzzface777

AS I read more and more and listen to Coldplay's first CD, I realize that the dinosaur Neve consoles [SSL?] were not very open sounding, a little murky but not muddy. If I understand correctly the tanner GTQ2 addresses this issue, bring the sound more open. I read the GtQ2 MK3's eq is top notch but not as good as the 1081. I am surprised that the 1081's eq is often reverred as amazing. Are there any mic pre's with eq's as good as the 1081? THen I see, the 5012 is nly a mic pre no EQ. Is it because the Eq isn't really needed on a mic pre anyway? Eq's can be done on another unit?

I hear great things about ams-neve 1073,1081, brent averill's 1073, 5012, gtq2, wunder, great river, api 3124+, chandler, even focusite but no comparisons are really being attempted, touchy area I guess.....

forgetting coldplay for a moment, your real audio question concerns EQ.

In the beginning of audio recording, microphones needed to have amplification, but the earliest console boards did not have equalization in them. The only EQ was usually at the very end during mastering -- Pultecs being an example of what is called program equalization.

Then as audio recording and console manufacture became more sophisticated, EQ was added to each of the channel amplifiers. These were usually active EQ rather than passive EQ (this is an entire other discussion) because of size and costs.

Active EQ circuitry can be rather dodgy -- skewering the phase and making sounds seem unnatural, so a good EQ is highly desirable. The two most famous and euphonic (pleasing sounding) EQ were the EQ in Neve and API consoles.

After the computer came to prominence in recording and consoles became expensive and unwieldy, people began buying them and chopping them up into separate channels -- necessitating re racking and providing power supplies for each individual channel. This grew into a cottage industry. Some other enterprising souls began emulating and building their own products based on schematics from these two most famous companies. These would be what you call the clones.

Now, as to whether or not you need EQ. As I said, in the beginning there was no EQ were general recording -- only for mastering. This is one reason why older records generally sound more real. And this requires me to describe in simplest terms a difference between active and passive EQ.

In the real world, sound is generated by a source and it travels outwards and strikes objects and walls and not only does this generate what is called reverberation, but a little bit of sound is lost every time the sound wave strikes anything. The sound cannot hit anything and get louder -- even a mirror. It can only lose volume.

A passive EQ is one in which the equalization only attenuates sound, that is, it can only make frequencies lower in volume. How then, can you make a certain frequency louder? By lowering all the other frequencies and then amplifying the signal to make up the difference in volume. This is exactly what a passive EQ does, and why it would cost more and take up more space -- because you've got a lot of things going on. But these passive EQ's generally sound more natural, sweet and pleasing.

In a console channel strip, the EQ is usually active -- and that means exactly what you can imagine -- that when you boost a frequency, it amplifies that frequency.

As described above, this can never happen in a natural world, so active EQ comes with certain problems inherent to it. It is difficult but not impossible to get an active EQ to sound good. The general rule for engineers is to only use negative EQ if possible -- that is, do not boost the frequencies you want, but cut the frequencies you do not want and then increase the volume. In this way you make an active EQ work a little more closely to the method that a passive EQ works with, and the sound will be more natural.

Of course, in the middle '60s, records began to be produced which were not supposed to sound real -- the psychedelic era, etc. Sometimes active EQ boosts can be very exciting -- making things like guitars, drums and vocals sound more real than real -- verging on the cartoon, like the burnt and exciting color used in fashion photography. At the end of the day, it turns out that there are no rules -- or rather, that there are rules only that they may be bent or broken.

I'm not sure if any of this is going to help you decide which preamp to buy. Many preamps contain EQ as part of their design. I can tell you that personally as an audio engineer and as a producer (which is not my first hat -- I am best known as a musician), I hardly ever use EQ when tracking, and although I use it both active and passive in mixing, out of 24 tracts of audio, maybe six or eight tracks will end up with EQ. Even when the preamps have very good EQ in them, I hardly ever use it, preferring to get good sound out of the source and choice of microphones.

Budding engineers who use EQ instead of microphones selection on a majority of tracks usually end up with a big mess at the end, with frequencies loading up and flying all over the place. In the old days, there was apprenticeship, with a new guy simply watching the older fellow put microphones in place and choosing signal paths. Now, with everybody starting from scratch at home, it is a lot harder. But the learning curve is not so terrible if you remember to keep the sounds natural -- at least as natural as possible until you learn how to modify them so that your cartoon sounds are desirable rather than a giant pile of tracks requiring fixing. Good luck.

Regards,
rlnyc

[Slaytex]

DW Fearn

[rlnyc]

Originally Posted by fuzzface777

Thanks for post, helped out because I really am new at all of this ,but I am intense and intent on learning. The rosetta apogee is writtin about a lot, I notice. Is this needed if one buys PT HD-1, and one of these talked about mic pre's?

I will buy a power mac, I want to get PT, a couple mic's and a decent mic pre. Is this everything I need to start saving for to get a nice little home studio guys? Do I need an apogee? Help!

Apogee rosetta is a converter. Apogee was one of the first high-end converters, analog to digital and vice versa. They had a patented process whereby they move the noise floor up where only the birds could hear it and this allowed the converters to get better audio.

Considering that you are a beginner and are talking about getting ProTools a couple of microphones and a decent mic pre, I would just go ahead and get those first -- start playing around and find out from there. The computer interface will come with some kind of converter -- you can worry about improving it later. Only my opinion, mind you.

Best luck,
rlnyc

[fuzzface777]

THANKS A LOT!!! Man, you are truly logical in your writing, and well versed! THat is best reply post I have EVER read ....EVER! Very nice of you, thanks again. I belive though a novice, I totally understood your points and I agree. In fact, I did suspect the things you mentioned, such as not allows needs eq etc, AND some engineers simplying winding with a ness and costing the artist big cash!


I am most curious, especially now that I am aware your knowledge in the area, which standby microphones (I agree about the quality of the source siginal) would recommend on the recording electric guitar [ in classic rock, modern rock, blues, blues rock, or pop/rock genres] ? -Royer 121 coles 4038 ?

What mics do you used for vocals U87? What mic's do you use for different voicing or tone other than your standby's?

BTW in simple terms, what is the difference between a condenser, dynamic, ribbon and supercardiod mic? Are the ribbons the best for voice and guitar?

I am not a bassist or drummer, and I don't think I am read to dwelve into tracking in the area, so vocal and electric guitar mics are my interests.
You said you are best know as I musician, can you tell me more through pm?
thanks

[rlnyc]

Originally Posted by fuzzface777

I am most curious, especially now that I am aware your knowledge in the area, which standby microphones (I agree about the quality of the source siginal) would recommend on the recording electric guitar [ in classic rock, modern rock, blues, blues rock, or pop/rock genres] ? -Royer 121 coles 4038 ?

What mics do you used for vocals U87? What mic's do you use for different voicing or tone other than your standby's?

BTW in simple terms, what is the difference between a condenser, dynamic, ribbon and supercardiod mic? Are the ribbons the best for voice and guitar?

for recording electric guitar there are many favorites including some very cheap ones. Probably the most famous is the Shure SM 57. Under $100. A dynamic microphone with decent output and a frequency bump in mid-range so it makes guitars stick out. Just as good and sometimes preferred are the Senheisers -- the 421 is probably the most famous for guitar amps as well as for Tom Toms, but the Senheiser E. 609 has become very popular. Also cheap.

Because of the hazards of crappy digital recording ribbon microphones have come into fashion again. Usually it is too dangerous to put them up against a super loud guitar amp, but the newer Royer 121 has a kind of windscreen built into it as well as a ribbon which is offset towards the back of the microphone so that it can be placed closer to loud sources. It has become the new standard for recording lots of things including guitar amplifiers because it is so realistic, but it costs over $1000. The Coles 4038 is absolutely magnificent ribbon microphone but is more fragile and costs even a little more. Also great for guitar amps is the Beyer M160 Hypercardioid ribbon microphone. Costs around $550 new.

As to vocal microphones. Expensive condensers are usually considered first because they have more natural high-end extension than either ribbons or dynamics, but many singers are famous for having sung into ribbons in the old days. Nowadays it seems people are addicted to a kind of shrill high-end and extreme volume and lack of dynamics in recording, so it is anybody's guess.

I have just written extensively on the difference between microphones in another thread you have started, so I'm not going to repeat myself. Luckily I have the day off and have done a lot of posting. But there are many other folks who have been around a longtime chatting about all the questions that you are posing. I suggest using the search and advance search functions at the top of the Gearslutz page to find out more about those things which you are so desirous of learning. Plus, any good search engine will turn out enormous quantities of technical information about audiorecording, audio engineering, microphone technologies, history of audio engineering and manufacturing, ad infinitum.

Best luck,
rlnyc

[fuzzface777]

Hey thanks again RL! I am seeing there are more mics out there to choose from that are actually not TOO expensive, so that is nice. Right now, I only have a beta shure 57 and a beta 58. Not sure if I like the tone from the shure beta 57 mic'ing my amp. I have tried it on other amps in the past, seems quite honky and cardboardish. I don't really know why, but I will buy some different ones and see if that improves.

thanks again!!! Much appreciated!

cary

[rlnyc]

Originally Posted by fuzzface777

Right now, I only have a beta shure 57 and a beta 58. Not sure if I like the tone from the shure beta 57 mic'ing my amp. I have tried it on other amps in the past, seems quite honky and cardboardish. I don't really know why, but I will buy some different ones and see if that improves.

thanks again!!! Much appreciated!

cary

beta 57s were designed to fight off the other mic companies getting smart about different magnets and designs which could put out hotter signals and for live vocals, that might be a good thing, but for guitar amps it blows in my opinion.

betas might actually be better for vocals but for recording guitar amps the regular 57s and much better (imo). i carry around a couple of senheiser e609s for live, cause i don't want a f*king beta near my rig, and i like the 609 black better than i like 57s. now they came out with the e906 (senheiser) which has three pattern rolloffs to choose from. everyfuc*ing buddy is trying to supersize sh*t that already works fine. it's a big marketing nightmare as far as i am concerned. they lower manufacturing costs and then tout stuff as "new and improved". anyway, good luck. research, research, research. that;s what you'll do if you want to get knbowledgeable about this stuff.

regards,
rlnyc

[Lagerfeldt]

Great River ME-1NV

[C/G]

Originally Posted by rlnyc

every fuc*ing buddy is trying to supersize sh*t that already works fine. it's a big marketing nightmare as far as i am concerned. They lower manufacturing costs and then tout stuff as "new and improved".
rlnyc

[tigermuzik]

Personally I'd go with Neve1073's i love the way they sound almost any mic sounds at least 10times better through one of those puppies

[skid mark]

I second Great River and OldSchoolAudio. Check out MercenaryAudio.com for a good selection of preamps. Also there's apiaudio, brentaverill, purpleaudio, even sytek-audio-systems. The 500 series rack – or the lunch box series is what I'm reading about, now. @Mercenary and Brent Averill. And there's alway$ .....******//www.wunderaudio.com, too. I can dream, can't I?

[LBF]

For a clean and open sound, you should check the GML 2032. It is definitely well within your budget.
******//www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/GML2032/