The dynamic microphone/"high end" mic pre MYTH?

[chessparov]

Many times you see various pro's and amateurs posting something like "wait till you get an expensive pre like (fill in the blank), and that
SM57 (or whatever) will finally sound great.

Even with a M-Audio Duo, which has the same
pre as a DMP2, the different dynamic mics at home can sound "release level" with good placement/EQ IMHO.

So...

Do you guys think this concept has been overblown?

It seems to be more of a game of inches to me.

Thanks
Chris

[jbuntz]

No doubt technique is invaluable, but I can hear drastic differences between pre's in the context of a mix. Not as drastic on the listening sessions mp3's.

[cdog]

I think you're right in some ways Chess... esp. here on the forums people tend to focus on the gear (this place is called gearslutz) and less on the "engineering."

But I think on the other hand we all know getting a good sound isn't all about the gear - its about using your ears and the grey matter lodged between them to make the most of what you have.

[Kenny Gioia]

Crappy engineers tend to have crap gear.

Great engineers tend to have great gear.

So it's very difficult to tell. But I have heard crappy recordings made by crappy engineers with hi end gear.

I've always said that ADAT's got a raw deal because they were in the hands of amateurs. I never owned a set but I did do a record on them once using a Neve 8068 Console for tracking and mixing and they sounded fine.

[cominginsecond]

Originally posted by chessparov
Do you guys think this concept has been overblown?

Yes.

Pres are so much less important than the mics themselves. That said, I only really like more expensive dynamics on vocals, regardless of the pre.

[Jay Kahrs]

The differences in micamps start to add up over 10-40 tracks in a song.

[Ruphus]

Quite a while ago I had been short before buying a mint RE-27 for 300 bucks from a friend already, but at the latest after Bob once mentioned how well better dynamic mics can work out I planned to get me one or two.

In the moment there are other things on the list, but I´m thinking to find out more about the better dynamics for sure.

Ruphus

[Dan-O]

Originally posted by cominginsecond
Yes.

Pres are so much less important than the mics themselves. That said, I only really like more expensive dynamics on vocals, regardless of the pre.

There is no question that the right mic on the right source is key. While that could mean anything from a Unidyne to a U47 I seem to find the most profound improvements with the pres. And most certainly when considering sonic signature on high track counts.

[joeq]

Originally posted by chessparov

Do you guys think this concept has been overblown?

It seems to be more of a game of inches to me.

overblown? sure. every technique and piece of gear has been hyped at one time or another and of course a preamp is just part of the chain of player, instrument, room, mic

but Myth? - not in my experience. I feel my 57s really do "come alive" through the better preamps.


sure its a game of inches- but adding up those inches to gain yardage is the Name of the game

[chessparov]

Excellent feedback, thanks again.

How about wierd mic/pre combo's that you favor? (where one is of the budget variety)

Harvey Gerst, for example, has said the Studio Projects VTB-1 sounds killer on the RCA 77DX ribbon when set to 50 Ohms.

The farthest up the pre food chain I've spent some time with was the Avalon 737 BTW.
So only have had a taste of higher end stuff.

Chris

[Drumsound]

I agree that certain pres make certain mics sound better. I only like SM57s with my Great River MP2 (the clean one not the NV).

[Jules]

I spent a few years recording vocals with an RE20 into a TLA EQ1 (Grey classic series)

OK I followed that with a Fousrite 215 / Urei 1176

But the initial part of the chain was quite cheap!

Worked GREAT!

That was all to 2" though.. it might sound rubbish on digital / PT (I havent tried as I dont have a RE20 at my studio)

[Teacher]

all i know is when I paired up my SM7 with my mackie pre's i was sorely dissappointed, thin, grainy harsh(all the nasty adjectives it was)I on the verge of selling it till I got pre's that were worth a damn (RNP & Mp-2r) Now my SM7 is another flavor in the arsenal.
With my Condenser mic the difference between mackie and my others isn't quite as huge even though it is there.

[not_so_new]

Yes. I have found that mic pres have minimal impact on tone relative to other pieces in the chain. The differences are to subtle to bother with IMO. Certainly doesn't justify the amount of time people spend sweating over it, and you can tell that some people really are sweating over it. I don't know about the cheap stuff, but that's been my experiance in the $1500 to $2500 range.

Well sure that might be true for a few tracks but in my experience good pre's make a difference on a whole mix. Yes a microphone will make a larger difference on side by side tracks but over 20 or 30 tracks in a session all the combined %5 increases between a good and a great pre really add up.

IMHO

I heard someone say once the difference between an okay pre and a top notch pre is the how the sound source gets located in the mix. I agree with this.

With a low end pre (reguardless of the mic) the sound is sort of "over there ish" while with a killer pre (again reguardless of the mic) the sound source is where you place it and exacly there. Almost like you can touch it at 11 o'clock or 3 o'clock (or what ever) in the mix. Maybe this does not make any sense but I notice these details over a large number of tracks with nice pres.

Should you loose sleep over it?? Nope, just go track and make music but.... the ends of the chain are more improtant to the process and that should not be discounted. Mics and speakers come first in my book followed by pres then A/D converters then etc.

Just my take.

[doorknocker]

Upgrading my pres has made a big difference, I agree that you can get good results with cheaper gear but you will work a lot harder. Since getting Chandler + UA pres, I tend to use way less EQ.
I'm amazed how good a 57 or a Beyer M201 thru a UA 2108 or Chandler TG-2 can sound on an acoustic guitar. I tend to use more dynamic mics now, I think good pres make all the difference in the world.

Andi

[Jay Kahrs]

A lot of the reason that dynamic mics sound better with better pres is because of the coupling that happens between the mics transformer and the micamps input tranny.

[Ruphus]

Originally posted by not_so_new

With a low end pre (reguardless of the mic) the sound is sort of "over there ish" while with a killer pre (again reguardless of the mic) the sound source is where you place it and exacly there. Almost like you can touch it at 11 o'clock or 3 o'clock (or what ever) in the mix.

Exactly my impression too.
Things get so 3-dimensional ... woohoo! Gotta love that!

Mics and speakers come first in my book followed by pres then A/D converters then etc.

Dunno, think like they compliment each other almost equally ( ok, with mics slightly leading ;O). But a great front end prolly couldn´t do it all through a bad convertor which would grain the hights, put something between you and the mids and take the balls off the lows.

( But as convertors will likely become great and cheap soon, the question might be limited to the front stuff in a while. )

I think you can have some fairly well engineered examples on inexpensive gear when listened separately, but in the moment when you compare similar takes in a mix made through high end devices you would find the difference each time again quite appreciable. Enough to make you run and sell your fridge or not, depends on the person.
I´m guilty. ... Have to store my butter & fish sticks at the janitor.

Ruphus

[Bob Olhsson]

Cheap low impedance mikes and preamps are a relatively new development. When I was a kid, the only really cheap mike pres were high impedance and designed for crystal mikes. Low impedance mikes and preamps were considered strictly pro gear. I had used Shure M-67s and thought them ok but not great however I was utterly shocked the first time I heard a 57 or an RCA 77 used with a little Tascam mixer. When it comes to dynamic and ribbon mikes, preamps make a big difference although this is more an indictment of crappy preamp designs than a call for using high end gear.

[chessparov]

Paul Stamler at RAP has mentioned how the lesser the mic pre, the better a flatter
microphone will do vs. a hyped one-like many
contemporary condensers.

I wonder if cheaper pre's also do better with omni's as the sound is more open/natural to begin with?

Out of my decent collection of dynamics,
the EV 635a omni seems to be in the lead when compared to how good it sounds on an Avalon. It retains its "imaging" more.

BTW thanks Bob O. for your and Scott Dorsey's respectful mentions of the EV 635a.
Am confident now that it could be used on any important personal projects.

I had a friend do a "blindfold" test of different
vocal microphones on me, and most of time i
it's neck and neck with the Shure 546.
Clarity is superior on the EV and the Shure is a bit fuller sounding=comparable IMHO.

[Caldo71]

I think a couple people like doorknocker on this thread are now getting closer to the truth behind good pres with dynamic mics. No, it's not over-hyped...it's just that the dynamic mic/great pre combo is a great thing for sources you might not conventionally think a dynamic mic is suited for. It seems like nobody ever considers using a ribbon mic with a crappy pre because you need to be able to get shitloads of gain with very low noise in order to bring out what's special about ribbons. It would seem to me the same would hold true for your SM57 dynamic or what have. They are meant to handle such high SPLs, and people assume that all they are good for is snares and the like. But a lot of engineers will tell you that the 57 has become a secret weapon for acoustic guitar and such, and I think maybe the big difference there is getting a mic pre that can boost up the mic to the point where hidden detail is revealed without being covered up with hiss.

I don't have any really fancy pres yet (they're in the mail!), but I have a decent one with tons of gain, and the first time I ran my 57 through that thing and tried it on acoustic guitar I was shocked by the clarity and presence of the track, as opposed to what I was getting out of the LDCs and SDCs that many assume are THE tool for acoustic guitar. There's some hidden magic in those cheapass dynamics that you have to coax out.

I think even cheap LDCs and such are far more tolerant of cheap preamps, because of their inherent "sparkliness" and sensitivity, and it's harder to tell the difference that the pre makes in that combo. My $250 LDC and $100 Behringer EuroTurd can sound great on many things.