What Makes A Good Mic Pre, Good?

[Snatchman]

Ouestion to the mic pre designers: " I've always tinkered with this thought in mind, not having any technical savvy to go on. From input........ to output, other than great components in the circuitry, what determines a good pre? Even the "bad" pres in theory (i assume) has the same goal in mind, to get the source signal from point A to B. Other than the components from point A to B, what else is there to consider? Sort of like, per se a Volkswagen and a Ferrari, both are designed to get you from point A to B, ( the Ferrari much faster) but other than the high performance parts, the Ferrari is still a car! So...the simple side of this question is, if you took the high performance components out of the Ferrari, and installed them in the Volkswagen, do I get similar performance as from the Ferrari? Same as with the mic pre. If you take the high performance parts out of the good pre, and installed in the "bad" pre, do you now have a good pre? Hope this is not to niave of a question to ask, but they always say" If you don't know, ask someone who does!" So.... is upgrading lesser gear, with better components, justifiable..? Thanks.............ps If this isn't the right colume to post this I'm sorry. Didn't exactly know which one, If not, will one of the Moderators please move it, thanks.

[lucey]

Originally posted by Snatchman
From input........ to output, other than great components in the circuitry, what determines a good pre?

Everyone is looking for something different in a pre. Most people have been designing toward "clean". Even Mr. Neve, like Jim Marshall the amp designer, shudders at the thought of distortion! And yet that's what they are well known for.

If you take the high performance parts out of the good pre, and installed in the "bad" pre, do you now have a good pre?

Well if you define "good" as the 'high performance' pre ... and if you took ALL the good parts over ... you'd have the "good" one again! But "good" for what? A vocal? EVERY vocalist? A guitar? Every guitarist?

A pre is a combination of everything, circuit board or point to point, hand soldered or machined, transformers or not, which transformer, which concept, which electrolytics or ICs or not, blah, blah, blah.


Bottom line, a pre amp reflects the essence of it's designer and the technology of the day. Generally the "good" ones employ higher quality parts and more elegant designs for the times, and yet these result in sounds from crystal to soft, to warm to crunchy if viewed over time.

How do you measure quality? Is this the question you seem to be asking? That's a good one.

[GMR]

Well you measure quality but what sounds good to either your ears, or people you trust if you don't have proper ears.

[Snatchman]

Thanks for the replies guys. True, as I don't have the "golden ears" that most people in this business probably has, still wonder about the question! Even though a good mic pre is designed for different purposes, on a certain "high-end" level, quality is still good, just different colors. As with cheaper pres, even though there is different "colors", it's not neccesarily quality! So.. the designers of the cheaper pres, design with what intent in mind, excluding meeting price point? Taking in consideration that we know good components, trannys,tubes, caps, etc. helps make a good pre, with these components installed in a lesser pre, that has the designs for trannys,tubes caps, ( there are some cheap pres designed this way,right/), now what separate the two? Better still, a high-end transformer based pre vs a low end transformer based pre! Hell, somebody tell me what I;m trying to ask, cause I'm getting confused now!

[warhead]

Originally posted by GMR
Well you measure quality but what sounds good to either your ears, or people you trust if you don't have proper ears.

Couldn't be more true.

War

[Dot]

I took a stab at explaining this in an article, http://www.digitalprosound.com/artic...e.jsp?id=14367

[PaRaNoId]

IMO- a good pre will get the exact sound that you are trying to "coax" out of whatever you plug into it....Alot of things come to mind when i listen to a pre- what's missing that i might get out of another pre? what is unique about the pre and is this going to add rather than take away from the tone? Is the pre going to adversly affect the end-user's audio system in a adverse fashion? and finally- is it an expensive and a respectable brand, ie NEVE, SSL, Manley....Just kidding, If you were knodding in agreement with my last statement, I will hopefully slap you in this lifetime.

[Snatchman]

Originally posted by PaRaNoId
IMO- a good pre will get the exact sound that you are trying to "coax" out of whatever you plug into it....Alot of things come to mind when i listen to a pre- what's missing that i might get out of another pre? what is unique about the pre and is this going to add rather than take away from the tone? Is the pre going to adversly affect the end-user's audio system in a adverse fashion? and finally- is it an expensive and a respectable brand, ie NEVE, SSL, Manley....Just kidding, If you were knodding in agreement with my last statement, I will hopefully slap you in this lifetime.

Ha ha ha, I hear ya, Paranoid, and thanks for the link , Dot!,

[chetatkinsdiet]

Like your car example with the high quality components. You can't simply take the expensive parts out of the ferrari and slap them into a VW. You've got to have the r&d to take advantage of those components. Even if it were possible to do the engine swap, the high speeds would make the VW body so unstable...it would probably careen off the road and crash. You don't have the steering and brakes to handle it.

Same goes with the mic pres. You can't just slap a Jensen transformer and do an opamp swap and expect Neve. Every single component in the design must be up to the same standards or it just won't be the same.

Again, there are different goals with pres. Some pristine/straight wire theory, some want to add a certain frequency bump or cut. Some excentuate the HF or LF, etc.

Later,
m

[Snatchman]

Originally posted by chetatkinsdiet
Like your car example with the high quality components. You can't simply take the expensive parts out of the ferrari and slap them into a VW. You've got to have the r&d to take advantage of those components. Even if it were possible to do the engine swap, the high speeds would make the VW body so unstable...it would probably careen off the road and crash. You don't have the steering and brakes to handle it.

Same goes with the mic pres. You can't just slap a Jensen transformer and do an opamp swap and expect Neve. Every single component in the design must be up to the same standards or it just won't be the same.

Again, there are different goals with pres. Some pristine/straight wire theory, some want to add a certain frequency bump or cut. Some excentuate the HF or LF, etc.

Later,
m

Thanks, ChetAdkinsDiet and everyone that has posted so far, I'm slowly getting there!..

[lucey]

The ressiue ideas are market driven, things like EMI, Vintech, etc. ... yet most new designs are generally all about 'clean', as were these now 'classic' designs in their day.

The resulting musicality varies based on the ears or in some cases the spec mindset of the designer ... so even in today's 'High End' a Flamingo, Massenberg, Avalon, Millenia, Buzz and Great River all vary in tone although each is transformerless, tubeless and clean in it's desgn.

Even Manleys tube pre's were aimed toward clean. Doug Fearn would probably say he prefers a tube/discrete sound, but 'clean' is still a drving force.


In the high end, there is almost always a pricepoint component to the street price, but the cost of R+D is up to the designer (or his employer) ... these costs, and the research approaches behind the choices in design, vary wildly. In high end gear the price is not the prime goal, as it is in the mid and low end. So some designs take longer to recoup.

[7rojo7]

I've yet to hear a unique artist that hasn't sounded exactly the same in front of any mic through any mic pre. That's what makes a good anything. imagine someone saying "I found the right combination for Rod Stewart" " I made Rod Stewart's voice" VFC as they say here

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by Dot

I took a stab at explaining this in an article, http://www.digitalprosound.com/artic...e.jsp?id=14367

Great, articulate article, Dan. Way to go. You're actually saying something reasonable. So many people speak technically, but not practically - very refreshing. Thanks for the conributed perspective.

But I would like to ask you this - is THE determining factor really a factor of space in the mix?

If so, out of "space in the mix" as an issue, what OTHER possible issues can I add to that list (the list of sonic factors ACTUALLY contributed to by the pre).

I'm not at all disputing your opinion (in fact, the opposite). I'm merely interested in a development of the idea.

In other words, if I say that "real estate space in the mix spectrum" is the key contributino of a pre (and is determined by how, as you say "cheap" the pre is), then what other considerations do I have as to what the pre conrtributes, sonically? AM I being clear?

How a pre effects the way a listener percieves a mix:

1. Space of that recording/track in the mix
2.?
3.?

You get the idea. Or is that the ONLY consideration?

I've read a lot of postings on GS in the last few days, and your link is one of the FEW iterations that actually describes anything relevant. Maybe I'm just an idiot, or am finding something interesting in your LANGUAGE.

[moeses]

to me,

with vocals, it makes me feel like the vocal is spanning the whole sonic spectrum and filling it up with boobies

[kats]

My problem with mic's and pre's is that I'm biased due to the emotional attachment I have with sounds and tones. I'm not looking for perfection in my gear, I'm looking for what sounds good to me.

So what happens? I'm into classic recordings from the Beatles, to Zep, to the Doors etc etc. After hearing those tones and sounds THOUSANDS of times - when I hear recordings or gear that play on those tones, I'm naturally drawn to it.

OTOH, I'm sure the listening audience has the same bias' and might not nessecarily be emotionally attached to pristine recordings, but subconsiencly be drawn to tonal qualities of their favorite albums.

Interestingly, this new generation growing up on digital recordings might not get attached to certain analog qualities and when they get older might have an emotional attachment to the digital qualites.

My last theory is that there might be something physiologically inherant in us that is attracted to harmonic distortion and other analog anomolies...who knows??

[tINY]

Once you get into the "decent" pre-amps, they don't tend to get much better from a technical/measureable standpoint. In fact, some of them get worse and are called better sounding.

The basics are always the same - resonable noise floor, enough headroom, flat enough frequency response...

What people want out of a"good" pre-amp varies. Usually, it comes down to "flavor" - which means "how it distorts the signal". Sometimes, as little distortion as possible is what people like (GML, Earthworks). Other times, people are serching for a little even-order harmonic distortion, soft overload charaterisics, or pleasing transient ringing (especially when close micing snare drums for pop music).

Build quality should be considered too. If it starts doing funny things or getting sticky pots after a couple of years, it's probably not something you want to pay a lot of money for.

Sometimes, the feel of the knobs, the warm glow of tube heaters, or the look of the unit in a rack is as important as anything else too......



-tINY

[NathanEldred]

Probably a silly definition...but to me a good preamp is one that doesn't make the original source sound worse. If it's 'accurate' or subjectively 'better' I know it's a good piece of gear.

[brucegel]

Odd that Nathan is the first to mention... does the mic pre reveal the instruments actual sound inhabiting the space your recording in.The move toward ultra clean has moved away from the goal not toward it.Some thermionic warmth must be in the circuitry for that to be realized.

[mr.gefell]

some criteria for me:

1. imaging

2. reproduction of high frequencies

3. precense

4.background noise

[jslevin]

Without disagreeing with the above, here's what I look for:

1. Highly detailed.
2. Broad frequency response.
3. Musically useful frequency response (coloration), one example of which would be "really flat."
4. Very low noise.
5. Excellent match for several types of sources.
6. Usable on nearly any source.
7. Lots of headroom.
8. In general, very high-quality components for the entire signal path.
9. Reliability (but for brands offering 1-7, this tends not to be an issue).

Dan, I liked your article a lot. In a way, you could sum up the whole topic with your one sentence:

On the other hand, with well-recorded tracks using good mic pres, you can often throw up the faders and the song is 95% there.

But I do wish people would stop carelessly writing things like this:

Investing in the front-end is actually investing ... if you invest in a high-end pre, it will still be worth nearly as much as you paid in five or even 10 years — and some of them will actually appreciate in value.

Gear is not investment. Investments are things that rise in value pretty reliably. Despite the selective memories of slutz everywhere, hardly any gear, even high-end preamps, actually appreciates in value -- and it's a pretty good guess that the era of appreciating gear is pretty much over and, frankly, probably on the verge of falling off a cliff. The imitators, inspired-bys, clones and reissues have caused a market correction -- not to mention the spate of really high-quality modern designs. (Can there be any doubt that the likes of Great River and Wunder have damaged the market for vintage preamps? And rightly so?)

I'm sure many folks saw the recent FS: thread for the Cranesong Spider -- I ask you, is there a much better gear "investment" out there than a Cranesong Spider? And yet he had a hell of a time selling it and probably ended up eating $1,000 from his first purchase price, possibly much more. That's okay, it probably was still a great purchase for him. But in an article where you're trying to educate less experienced folks, you're doing them a real disservice by putting this fantasy in their head that the stuff is going to hold its value (let alone appreciate).

Of course digital workstation gear holds its value the worst, but that doesn't mean that the heavy iron is a real investment. In your work and growth as a professional, yes. In your personal assets? Absolutely not. Not even if you buy used at a good price.

JSL

[Studio Dweller]

Originally Posted by moeses

it makes me feel like the vocal is spanning the whole sonic spectrum and filling it up with boobies

I think I just found my new sig quote.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by jslevin

But in an article where you're trying to educate less experienced folks, you're doing them a real disservice by putting this fantasy in their head that the stuff is going to hold its value (let alone appreciate).

Vintage gear can appreciate a lot. Not as much as guitars, but still. Some really good new gear appreciates a little as prices rise and interest is sustained, but when you sell that stuff it's used so you may lose a little there.

Anything digital depreciates, a lot. Mid fi depreciates, a lot.


A great mic pre is the one that makes you go "YES!"

[max cooper]

What makes a good mic preamp 'good'?

A good song.

A good singer.

[DAWgEAR]

Originally Posted by jslevin

Gear is not investment.

Of course it can be an investment. Gear is a durable capital asset that, if chosen wisely, generates a return for many years. The "return" is not a pecuniary one, but is measured in less tangible ways: reliabilty, repeatabilty, confidence, versatility.

Sometimes buying the cheap stuff costs more in the long run.

It is very much an investment in the same way a craftsman might choose his tools. He does not expect to sell them for a capital gain. Rather, he buys tools that can be depended upon to get the job done effectively, efficiently, and without hassles or headaches.

[AmekGuy]

Originally Posted by lucey

Everyone is looking for something different in a pre. Most people have been designing toward "clean". Even Mr. Neve, like Jim Marshall the amp designer, shudders at the thought of distortion! And yet that's what they are well known for.

Well if you define "good" as the 'high performance' pre ... and if you took ALL the good parts over ... you'd have the "good" one again! But "good" for what? A vocal? EVERY vocalist? A guitar? Every guitarist?

A pre is a combination of everything, circuit board or point to point, hand soldered or machined, transformers or not, which transformer, which concept, which electrolytics or ICs or not, blah, blah, blah.


Bottom line, a pre amp reflects the essence of it's designer and the technology of the day. Generally the "good" ones employ higher quality parts and more elegant designs for the times, and yet these result in sounds from crystal to soft, to warm to crunchy if viewed over time.

How do you measure quality? Is this the question you seem to be asking? That's a good one.

Good post.

[vernier]

Best records I've heard were recorded on a console containing one type of pre.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by lucey

Vintage gear can appreciate a lot. Not as much as guitars, but still.

I'm sorry, Brian, but the amount of gear out there that is going to appreciate is vanishingly small. And my core point is that advising inexperienced people to think of their high-end preamps as things that will hold their value or appreciate is simply misguiding them, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by DAWgEAR

Of course it can be an investment. Gear is a durable capital asset that, if chosen wisely, generates a return for many years. The "return" is not a pecuniary one, but is measured in less tangible ways: reliabilty, repeatabilty, confidence, versatility.

Yes, I agree with this wholeheartedly. As I already said. It's an investment in your skills and your career -- just not a financial investment.

JSL