Listening to preamps on the ZenPro Clipalator

[duff mcshark]

I've been listening to different preamps on the ZenPro Clipalator, using my Grado SR-80's plugged into my iMac's headphone jack and I cannot hear hardly any difference at all between any of the pres. At least not in the sense that any mixes done with the ART Pro MPA II sound worse than anything done with pres that cost 2 - 10 times as much. Individual instruments, total mixes, it didn't matter; everything sounded so boringly close that I wonder why people get so caught up in owning countless preamps.

I can easily hear the differences between the mics, eqs, comps, reverbs, but not the pres. Does it have to do with the way the "tests" were done? Do these preamps need to be pushed in their own unique ways to really show their differences?

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by duff mcshark

I've been listening to different preamps on the ZenPro Clipalator, using my Grado SR-80's plugged into my iMac's headphone jack and I cannot hear hardly any difference at all between any of the pres. At least not in the sense that any mixes done with the ART Pro MPA II sound worse than anything done with pres that cost 2 - 10 times as much. Individual instruments, total mixes, it didn't matter; everything sounded so boringly close that I wonder why people get so caught up in owning countless preamps.

I can easily hear the differences between the mics, eqs, comps, reverbs, but not the pres. Does it have to do with the way the "tests" were done? Do these preamps need to be pushed in their own unique ways to really show their differences?

I just posted something quite similar, BTW I own API preamps and compressors.. I have also owned or used Neve and GR..

Below I'm quoting myself:

Scary thing is, I must of listened to about 20 shoot out's of mic Pre's also listened to mixes of my own.. Unless it's a stock pre or bad pre.. (Which is becoming rarer), it seems a lot of them are perfectly sufficient.

There was the ART vs. GR thread, to me it was obvious which the ART and GR was.. Technically the GR is better and I have owned some, but I didn't like both of them. Neve Pre's are fine...

Most of the other pre's I have used, whilst they may have a slight difference.. If they are pretty neutral they don't seem to matter that much.

API's are the only real pre's I can notice quite a change with, they do just sound excellent to me.. Thing I worry about, if the Daking doesn't sound up to the API's, then it's just going to get sent straight back.

Whilst I kinda like the Trident thing, in humble opinion.. API just does it for me.. The Trident's don't seem to, not sure why.

[dasnub]

Pres are a hype train with a full head of steam on this board. They are so, so overrated that it blows my mind.

Get a pre that gives you enough clean gain for the mic you're running it into. That is literally all that matters. High end pres are the last part of the puzzle, and it's one huge freakin puzzle we're dealing with.

[FilmNMusicman]

I definitely agree, they sound different. I own a Eureka, a VXP and a ART PRO MPA V1. I can tell the difference between them. It really comes when you're stacking tracks with the same preamp. I'd say that I'd rather have 1 ooober clean preamp and track everything through it. Not like 10 colored preamps and have to switch between all of them to achieve a balanced mix.

[hemmick reef]

I use a Steinberg MR816x and the preamps are pretty good, apparently, but I needed to find out for myself so I rented a Neve channel strip and a lunchbox with API preamps and compressors.
The only difference, after a weekend of testing guitars and vocals, is that the high end preamps have a well balanced sound. They did the job well...
BUT.... After vocal testing with an Audio Technica microphone I tried playing with the eq in Cubase, trying to match my preamps to the Neve. After a wide mid frequency cut of around 5-10 dB and a 5dB boost in the higher frequencies I thought that the difference became so small that I'm very happy with the MR816x.
I'm just concentrating on mixing now which I believe is much more important than high end versus low end gear.

[Enlightened Hand]

What I love about the "clipalator" is that it cuts a lot of BS out of the conversation about the sound quality of gear. With preamps specifically you're always talking about a subtle thing. The fact that it's sometimes challenging to just casually listen and pick out the differences between preamps is evidence of that. But there is more to the story.

You kind of have to know what to listen for and what to listen to when you're looking to spot the differences between preamps, because they all give you the basic sound presentation similarly. The differences come down to little details and certain instruments reveal those details easier than others.

For example it's not such a good idea to try and hear the differences between preamps by listening exclusively to tracks of electric bass guitar. Because the electric bass doesn't have that complex of a sound (compared to other sources), with enough subtleties dispersed throughout the frequency spectrum to call attention to all the things a preamp might do. For me the biggest preamp subtlety revealing instruments are the snare drum, the acoustic guitar (both steel string and classical) and the kick drum. I like those because they are complex sounds with all kinds of overtones and competing frequencies from all over the audible frequency spectrum that interact is ways that really show how a preamp behaves. Even so you still need to have an idea of what to pay attention to.

With transformer based pres for example I listen for how the low frequencies come across. Do they have an enhanced sense of "weight" or "impact"? Are they harmonically rich? Do they sound full and "meaty" or something else? These are the kinds of things that tend to happen with certain preamps that have transformers in the signal path. Once you get used to how that sounds you can recognize it easily and you start to notice when it's not there.

I also listen in general to the fine detail of preamps. Do you hear the immediate space around the instruments as though you're in the room with the source? Do transients stand out? How does the room sound present itself? Does the ambient sound have depth? What about the mid range? Does the mid range seem congested? Is it homogenized? Can you pick the frequencies apart in your mind? Can you close your eyes and feel as though if you were to reach out you'd touch the instruments? All of these things come into play subtly when comparing preamps. It's all very subtle and requires careful attention to hear in comparisons.

Unfortunately, most folks not only don't know what to listen for but they don't have monitoring that would allow them to hear much difference even if they did know what to listen for. So subtleties that ordinarily would be audible get lost in poor monitoring. So there you have it; it's almost always a fine line of difference in general until you get accustomed to hearing what you need to hear. Whether the differences matter is entirely subjective. Because regardless of preference, a functioning preamp can do the job as well as any other functioning preamp. The question becomes: how much "extra" sonic euphony do you feel you need to get what makes you feel good?

[guitarboy94]

Enlightened One just made an excellent post. Thumbs up.

To add, IMHO, I believe you start getting into pro-quality preamps once you hit the 400-500 dollar threshold. Beyond that point, you're paying for subtleties. I noticed a big improvement when I upgraded from a DMP3 to an ISA ONE. The DMP3 was a cold sounding preamp that seemed to thin out the entire frequency spectrum, making it's overall sonic character brittle and thin sounding. It's almost as if the DMP3 (and other low-budget preamps) looses enough information, especially in the mids, to impart a noticeable subtractive EQ tonality. Not so with the ISA ONE. The general tone is noticeably richer with no brittle or thin frequencies going on.

[Jimsi]

the Clipalator never impressed me, not that War didnt try, but you'll need to have the preamp and test to see how many tracks sound together....stacking tracks...Your ears do adjust to subtle sounds between your preamps and compressors.......the same with your mics and other gear....

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

Enlightened One just made an excellent post. Thumbs up.

To add, IMHO, I believe you start getting into pro-quality preamps once you hit the 400-500 dollar threshold. Beyond that point, you're paying for sublteties. I noticed a big improvement when I upgraded from a DMP3 to an ISA ONE. The DMP3 was a cold sounding preamp that seemed to thin out the entire frequency spectrum, making it's overall sonic character brittle and thin sounding. It's almost as if the DMP3 (and other low-budget preamps) looses enough information, especially in the mids, to impart a noticeable subtractive EQ tonality. Not so with the ISA ONE. The general tone is noticeably richer with no brittle or thin frequencies going on.

Here we find the other, most destructive side of comparison, how people describe differences and how they contextualize them and how they assign dollar value to the sound quality of a piece. If only it was so simple.

I own a DMP3. I also own a Grace 201 something that costs over 10 times as much, but is also a transformerless, "clean" style design. I would say that the DMP3 isn't in ANY way "cold sounding" or "thin" or "brittle" at all compared to the Grace. But it is slightly less full and not as deep and also not quite as revealing in the subtlest of details. But overall they're not far enough apart for it to matter to me. In the end I think the biggest difference is the sense of dimension and size that is slightly less so with the DMP by comparison.

If I had to make some recording happen that required me to either have to carry the Grace or the DMP I would (and I have) reach for the DMP in all but the most sonically critical of missions, because the sound is really that useful and considering it costs so little it's really impressive (and cheap to replace). It won't last long I bet. And it certainly isn't a flavor piece. But as a straightforward preamp the DMP is a very respectable performer a fact that starkly contrasts with it's price tag.

But that's when you look at it from the perspective of a "clean", transformerless style preamp compared to one of the "best" of that style. But the comparison starts to become less meaningful when you start comparing things to different styles of preamp, such as the ISA.

I have used an ISA many, many times in the past. It's a transformer based pre that has a relatively tame sound. It's not especially full or rich, nor is it exceptionally detailed or vivid. But it is noticeably fuller and imparts more of a sense of impact in the low frequencies than most transformerless preamp designs, a fact that's typical of most classic transformer based designs. Though the ISA isn't a very "heavy", "punchy" pre in general as preamps go it has more punch and weight than run-of-the-mill interface pres or more "honest", "clean" style preamps when you drive it a little or use it on percussive sources. Compared to say the relatively similarly priced Pre73 the ISA somewhat lacks a little "heft". But that's a matter of different designs, not a matter of quality. So when I read the above comparison of the DMP3 to the ISA I am in complete disagreement with the conclusions though I can see how if one is hasty to interpret relative sonics between those two specific devices to overall quality, and then subsequently form a judgement based on generalizations how one might say something like what has been said.

It's no great task to design a relatively high headroom, "clean", solid-state preamp around an integrated circuit, using surface mount technology, with an external wall wart power supply cheaply as a stand alone device. It has been done many times. The DMP3 is exactly that and that is why it's cheap. That's also why it's not something that will likely last the user many years of hard work, but none of that, neither it's price nor it's long term reliability prevents it from sounding inoffensive and quite clean, even compared to very well designed preamps of similar style. That's something that can't be known though unless you have the direct experience of both and you don't have any axe to grind against "cheap" gear biasing your experience.

With that said it becomes clear (to me at least) that it's not so simple as to figure the dollar level that determines absolute quality. Because there are pieces that if done a certain way happen to just sound fine for the job, regardless of their cost. Whether or not one likes that sound is subjective and that's the problem with so much of this "gear talk". Ultimately it's a very highly subjective conversation where members like to pass off opinion as fact. But I have made it a point to dive deeper into the question of "cheap" gear versus "high end" gear and I've found the differences aren't so clear most of the time. So I can't agree with the statements in the post I quoted.

[steveschizoid]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

Enlightened One just made an excellent post. Thumbs up.

+1, although I find acoustic guitar to be fairly useful for this...

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

To add, IMHO, I believe you start getting into pro-quality preamps once you hit the 400-500 dollar threshold.

Not sure I agree here. My first "high end" pre was a Neve Portico - this was about 9 years ago. I was pretty excited about it, but when I plugged it in and tried it, I was pretty underwhelmed. I could hear a difference between it and my DBX 386, but I was not convinced it was a thousand dollar difference!

A friend (who has since gone on to work for Billy Corgan) offered to let me compare it to some of his pre's. He had several professional grade devices, but the only one that really stuck out (and it was quite a revelatory, clouds parting allowing the sun to shine through kind of experience...) was his GTQ2.

Long story short, I have since used enough high end pre's to have a feeling for the different things they can do. For instance, my opinion of API pre's is that they are great for snare drums, but I'll take Aurora Audio pre's for almost anything else. I had a A Designs MP2 for a while that gave me some great electric guitar tones....anyhow, I had to give up all those to make way for 18 channels of Aurora Audio pre's.

To the OP: pre's are certainly not a huge deal if you're making stuff for your own amusement, but if you are attempting to attract paying clients and/or compete with major league productions, you really need the best front end you can assemble, and the circuitry that amplifies the mic level signal is definitely significant.

[guitarboy94]

I'm just going off my personal experience, and what I stated is my perception of what I heard (and we know how subjective sonic opinions can be, including yours). If the DMP3 were that wonderful stock, why does JJ Audio offer a mod that others on Geartlutz reported to be a significant improvement? I had both pres and compared them both. The most noticeable differences were on the acoustic guitar, as you stated above. Perhaps what I'm hearing is the sonic difference between a transformer and non-transformer based pre? I would be really curious to hear a DMP3 and a Grace 101 side by side on acoustic guitar. Perhaps that might be a fairer comparison? Perhaps comparing a DMP3 to an ISA ONE is an apple to oranges comparison? You know I'm a huge fan of budget gear, but to me, from personal experience, the stock DMP3 just didn't do it for me. Big sonic improvement after moving to the ISA ONE for just a few hundred bucks more.

I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think we're agreeing on the sound of the DMP3, we're just using different wording to describe the same thing. You say the DMP3 sounds "less full". Isn't that the definition of "thin"?

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

Here we find the other, most destructive side of comparison, how people describe differences and how they contextualize them and how they assign dollar value to the sound quality of a piece. If only it was so simple.

I own a DMP3. I also own a Grace 201 something that costs over 10 times as much, but is also a transformerless, "clean" style design. I would say that the DMP3 isn't in ANY way "cold sounding" or "thin" or "brittle" at all compared to the Grace. But it is slightly less full and not as deep and also not quite as revealing in the subtlest of details. But overall they're not far enough apart for it to matter to me. In the end I think the biggest difference is the sense of dimension and size that is slightly less so with the DMP by comparison.

If I had to make some recording happen that required me to either have to carry the Grace or the DMP I would (and I have) reach for the DMP in all but the most sonically critical of missions, because the sound is really that useful and considering it costs so little it's really impressive (and cheap to replace). It won't last long I bet. And it certainly isn't a flavor piece. But as a straightforward preamp the DMP is a very respectable performer a fact that starkly contrasts with it's price tag.

But that's when you look at it from the perspective of a "clean", transformerless style preamp compared to one of the "best" of that style. But the comparison starts to become less meaningful when you start comparing things to different styles of preamp, such as the ISA.

I have used an ISA many, many times in the past. It's a transformer based pre that has a relatively tame sound. It's not especially full or rich, nor is it exceptionally detailed or vivid. But it is noticeably fuller and imparts more of a sense of impact in the low frequencies than most transformerless preamp designs, a fact that's typical of most classic transformer based designs. Though the ISA isn't a very "heavy", "punchy" pre in general as preamps go it has more punch and weight than run-of-the-mill interface pres or more "honest", "clean" style preamps when you drive it a little or use it on percussive sources. Compared to say the relatively similarly priced Pre73 the ISA somewhat lacks a little "heft". But that's a matter of different designs, not a matter of quality. So when I read the above comparison of the DMP3 to the ISA I am in complete disagreement with the conclusions though I can see how if one is hasty to interpret relative sonics between those two specific devices to overall quality, and then subsequently form a judgement based on generalizations how one might say something like what has been said.

It's no great task to design a relatively high headroom, "clean", solid-state preamp around an integrated circuit, using surface mount technology, with an external wall wart power supply cheaply as a stand alone device. It has been done many times. The DMP3 is exactly that and that is why it's cheap. That's also why it's not something that will likely last the user many years of hard work, but none of that, neither it's price nor it's long term reliability prevents it from sounding inoffensive and quite clean, even compared to very well designed preamps of similar style. That's something that can't be known though unless you have the direct experience of both and you don't have any axe to grind against "cheap" gear biasing your experience.

With that said it becomes clear (to me at least) that it's not so simple as to figure the dollar level that determines absolute quality. Because there are pieces that if done a certain way happen to just sound fine for the job, regardless of their cost. Whether or not one likes that sound is subjective and that's the problem with so much of this "gear talk". Ultimately it's a very highly subjective conversation where members like to pass off opinion as fact. But I have made it a point to dive deeper into the question of "cheap" gear versus "high end" gear and I've found the differences aren't so clear most of the time. So I can't agree with the statements in the post I quoted.

[Jtt]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

I'm just going off my personal experience, and what I stated is my perception of what I heard (and we know how subjective sonic opinions can be, including yours). If the DMP3 were that wonderful stock, why does JJ Audio offer a mod that others on Geartlutz reported to be a significant improvement? I had both pres and compared them both. The most noticeable differences were on the acoustic guitar, as you stated above. Perhaps what I'm hearing is the sonic difference between a transformer and non-transformer based pre? I would be really curious to hear a DMP3 and a Grace 101 side by side on acoustic guitar. Perhaps that might be a fairer comparison? Perhaps comparing a DMP3 to an ISA ONE is an apple to oranges comparison? You know I'm a huge fan of budget gear, but to me, from personal experience, the stock DMP3 just didn't do it for me. Big sonic improvement after moving to the ISA ONE for just a few hundred bucks more.

I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think we're agreeing on the sound of the DMP3, we're just using different wording to describe the same thing. You say the DMP3 sounds "less full" then the ISA ONE. Isn't that the definition of "thin"?

The DMP3 is a good pre, especially for the money. Your personal opinion is colored by inexperience. (which is not an insult)

The ISA might be subjectively better, but the difference between the ISA and DMP probably isn't going to make or break your recordings.

Jtt

[guitarboy94]

I think passable recordings can be made on the DMP3. It's not a "Bad" pre. It's usable. For me, switching to the ISA ONE was like moving from "Regular" to "Plus" gasoline. I used the DMP3 for 3 years. I believe that's enough time to form an educated opinion on it's performance.

[duff mcshark]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

I think passable recordings can be made on the DMP3. It's not a "Bad" pre. It's usable. For me, switching to the ISA ONE was like moving from "Regular" to "Plus" gasoline. I used the DMP3 for 3 years. I believe that's enough time to form an educated opinion on it's performance.

Switching from regular to plus gasoline is actually a waste of money if your car wasn't designed to run on high octane fuel.

Sent from my C771 using Gearslutz.com

[guitarboy94]

Originally Posted by duff mcshark

Switching from regular to plus gasoline is actually a waste of money if your car wasn't designed to run on high octane fuel.

Sent from my C771 using Gearslutz.com

Interesting....explain in terms of recording.

[duff mcshark]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

Interesting....explain in terms of recording.

Using $500 mic cables won't make your SM-57 sound like anything other than an SM-57.

Sent from my C771 using Gearslutz.com

[guitarboy94]

Isn't that a bit of a straw-man argument? We're specifically talking preamps here, not 500 dollar cables.

I own an SM57. It's smoother and more open sounding on my ISA ONE, as opposed to my DMP3. The improvement was more than noticeable. However, I don't see any need to spend a penny more on preamps than I spent on my ISA ONE (385 bucks new). I can't think of anything more ridiculous than the thought of forking over 2 or 3000 skins on a preamp. I'd rather buy a 3,000 dollar acoustic guitar and improve the source first.

Originally Posted by duff mcshark

Using $500 mic cables won't make your SM-57 sound like anything other than an SM-57.

Sent from my C771 using Gearslutz.com

[duff mcshark]

Yeah, I couldn't think of a good preamp related analogy.

Sent from my C771 using Gearslutz.com

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by duff mcshark

I've been listening to different preamps on the ZenPro Clipalator, using my Grado SR-80's plugged into my iMac's headphone jack and I cannot hear hardly any difference at all between any of the pres. At least not in the sense that any mixes done with the ART Pro MPA II sound worse than anything done with pres that cost 2 - 10 times as much. Individual instruments, total mixes, it didn't matter; everything sounded so boringly close that I wonder why people get so caught up in owning countless preamps.

I can easily hear the differences between the mics, eqs, comps, reverbs, but not the pres. Does it have to do with the way the "tests" were done? Do these preamps need to be pushed in their own unique ways to really show their differences?

the only way to really get a full flavor of a pre is to track a whole song or a few stacked tracks and listen to it as a whole. Auditioning a preamp with 1 instrument is sort of pointless. You will never get the full essence, same with converters. Microphones may be a little different obviously they reveal more but still its all how everything sits in the mix. You can't get a feel for that with 1 pass..........

[duff mcshark]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

the only way to really get a full flavor of a pre is to track a whole song or a few stacked tracks and listen to it as a whole. Auditioning a preamp with 1 instrument is sort of pointless. You will never get the full essence, same with converters. Microphones may be a little different obviously they reveal more but still its all how everything sits in the mix. You can't get a feel for that with 1 pass..........

They have full mixes to listen to on the clipilator, and they are what I was listening to mostly.

Sent from my C771 using Gearslutz.com

[Chrisc_o]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

I think passable recordings can be made on the DMP3. It's not a "Bad" pre. It's usable. For me, switching to the ISA ONE was like moving from "Regular" to "Plus" gasoline. I used the DMP3 for 3 years. I believe that's enough time to form an educated opinion on it's performance.

Statements like this always rub me the wrong way. A stellar performance in a stellar room captured with a top-notch mic in the hands of a top-notch engineer run through a DMP3 will not sound anything less than stellar.

I've heard pro recordings tracked through worse things than a DMP3.

[guitarboy94]

Agree...so why are the pros spending thousands on preamps?

Originally Posted by Chrisc_o

Statements like this always rub me the wrong way. A stellar performance in a stellar room captured with a top-notch mic in the hands of a top-notch engineer run through a DMP3 will not sound anything less than stellar.

I've heard pro recordings tracked through worse things than a DMP3.

[PhilDW]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

Agree...so why are the pros spending thousands on preamps?

1. Clients like that stuff, just like they like to see the odd Neumann lying around.
2. In a relatively expensive pro environment the difference between a $500 and a $3000 preamp is a drop in the bucket compared to (say) the rent.
3. The potential for endorsements and the occasional free lunch!
4. Deductions, lol.


Some exaggeration for poetic license, maybe, but enough to make the point.

[Chrisc_o]

Originally Posted by PhilDW

1. Clients like that stuff, just like they like to see the odd Neumann lying around.
2. In a relatively expensive pro environment the difference between a $500 and a $3000 preamp is a drop in the bucket compared to (say) the rent.
3. The potential for endorsements and the occasional free lunch!
4. Deductions, lol.


Some exaggeration for poetic license, maybe, but enough to make the point.

5. Reliability. Higher-end gear tends to break-down less.
6. Efficiency. Sometimes it is faster working with gear that has a built-in "sound" rather than spending time fussing about.
7. Consistency. Gear used in common from one studio to the next makes it easier on tracking and mix engineers to place what they are hearing in context. The NS10 monitors, while not necessarily considered "high-end", are a perfect example of this.

High-end gear is used for many reasons, but to imply that the DMP3 can only produce "passable" recordings is beyond exaggeration.

[guitarboy94]

"6. Efficiency. Sometimes it is faster working with gear that has a built-in "sound" rather than spending time fussing about."

Okay, so maybe it's your point 6 that I'm finding most relevant in my situation. I'm a home recording artist who lacks the patience and advanced knowledge of how to tweak every piece of low-end gear into sonic perfection. I like to plug and play and move on. That's sort of my point about higher end gear (though I wouldn't call the ISA ONE high end, though it is a step up from the DMP3). It just starts to work for you with less hassle, rather than the opposite.

Can a Kia Rio get you from A to point B? Yes.

Can a Cadillac get you from point A to point B with more comfort?

Yes!

Okay, now it's time for someone with seemingly more know-how than I to contradict what I just said.

Originally Posted by Chrisc_o

5. Reliability. Higher-end gear tends to break-down less.
6. Efficiency. Sometimes it is faster working with gear that has a built-in "sound" rather than spending time fussing about.
7. Consistency. Gear used in common from one studio to the next makes it easier on tracking and mix engineers to place what they are hearing in context. The NS10 monitors, while not necessarily considered "high-end", are a perfect example of this.

High-end gear is used for many reasons, but to imply that the DMP3 can only produce "passable" recordings is beyond exaggeration.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

"6. Efficiency. Sometimes it is faster working with gear that has a built-in "sound" rather than spending time fussing about."

Okay, so maybe it's your point 6 that I'm finding most relevant in my situation. I'm a home recording artist who lacks the patience and advanced knowledge of how to tweak every piece of low-end gear into sonic perfection. I like to plug and play and move on. That's sort of my point about higher end gear (though I wouldn't call the ISA ONE high end, though it is a step up from the DMP3). It just starts to work for you with less hassle, rather than the opposite.

Can a Kia Rio get you from A to point B? Yes.

Can a Cadillac get you from point A to point B with more comfort?

Yes!

Okay, now it's time for someone with seemingly more know-how than I to contradict what I just said.

People forget to step back and look at the bigger picture here.

Let's say there is a 10% difference in audio quality between your ISA and my API..

That's fine, there's not a massive difference and it's not extremely detrimental.

So let's say now I lose 10% on skimping mic's, then I loose 10% on a DAC then I loose 10% on monitors then I loose 10% on the room, loose some more on compressors.

So all together including the PRE, I'm down 60% on quality..

Small bit's of quality add up.

[Chrisc_o]

Originally Posted by ShadowAMD

People forget to step back and look at the bigger picture here.

Let's say there is a 10% difference in audio quality between your ISA and my API..

That's fine, there's not a massive difference and it's not extremely detrimental.

So let's say now I lose 10% on skimping mic's, then I loose 10% on a DAC then I loose 10% on monitors then I loose 10% on the room, loose some more on compressors.

So all together including the PRE, I'm down 60% on quality..

Small bit's of quality add up.

Fair enough, but 10% is not realistic. In many cases it can be less than 1%.

A better perspective is taking the advice of someone who loses 1% on his preamp, then 1% on his mic, then 1% on his AD/DA, then, ok, 10% on his monitors, then maybe 10% on his room, yet has only 10% of the experience, and 25% of the arranging talent, and 30% of the songwriting talent, and 50% of the musical talent, and 25% of the mixing talent of a team of professionals, tell you that it's the fault of a preamp that his recordings don't sound good.

The TALENT is what makes the most difference. Experience matters more than the 1-10% gained from this preamp or that one.

[guitarboy94]

Spot on, Chris!

Originally Posted by Chrisc_o

Fair enough, but 10% is not realistic. In many cases it can be less than 1%.

A better perspective is taking the advice of someone who loses 1% on his preamp, then 1% on his mic, then 1% on his AD/DA, then, ok, 10% on his monitors, then maybe 10% on his room, yet has only 10% of the experience, and 25% of the arranging talent, and 30% of the songwriting talent, and 50% of the musical talent, and 25% of the mixing talent of a team of professionals, tell you that it's the fault of a preamp that his recordings don't sound good.

The TALENT is what makes the most difference. Experience matters more than the 1-10% gained from this preamp or that one.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by Chrisc_o

Fair enough, but 10% is not realistic. In many cases it can be less than 1%.

A better perspective is taking the advice of someone who loses 1% on his preamp, then 1% on his mic, then 1% on his AD/DA, then, ok, 10% on his monitors, then maybe 10% on his room, yet has only 10% of the experience, and 25% of the arranging talent, and 30% of the songwriting talent, and 50% of the musical talent, and 25% of the mixing talent of a team of professionals, tell you that it's the fault of a preamp that his recordings don't sound good.

The TALENT is what makes the most difference. Experience matters more than the 1-10% gained from this preamp or that one.

But that's obvious and where talking about gear.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by guitarboy94

Spot on, Chris!

Naughty GBOY