Mic Pres and classic stuff...

[tobymusic]

Recently this forum has seen lots of threads about Neve, Neve clones, API and other classic mic pres. Many fellows actually own one or more of these classic devices and even more fellows dream of owning them and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, I feel that this discussion is getting a little out of hand because you could get the impression that these devices are the "must-haves" to obtain a certain "classic" tone or timbre.
I think to get a certain tone there is one thing that´s a lot more important than the preamp used...the microphone. That´s the part where the tone changes most (IMHO) and I would even dare to say that the "right" microphone for a specific application combined with a cheap or "bad" preamp is still a lot better than the wrong microphone and a great classic preamp.
I know microphones don´t come cheap, but there´s many of good ones out there that could give you a far greater tone palette than a couple of preamps.

What do you guys think?

[Kenny Gioia]

I couldn't disagree with you more.

In my findings I find the exact opposite to be true.

I could make a great sounding record IMHO using nothing more than a Shure 57 and some great Pre's.

For everything.

I could not achieve the same result using an ART Tube MP and the biggest microphone collection in the world.

This is one of the biggest reasons why people are choosing cheaper and cheaper microphones and more expensive pre's.

I know a very famous engineer who prided himself on using the "wrong" mic for each purpose just to see the results.

YMMV (in this case it shouldn't)

[Dot]

Originally posted by tobymusic
However, I feel that this discussion is getting a little out of hand because you could get the impression that these devices are the "must-haves" to obtain a certain "classic" tone or timbre.

I've usually found that the people who shortchange the "classic" mic pres don't have any experience using them. Actually, those pres definitely, absolutely, positively are "must-haves" if you want to obtain a certain "classic" tone or timbre.

[tobymusic]

"Actually, those pres very much are "must-haves" if you want to obtain a certain "classic" tone or timbre."

Says who? I mean many of those "classic"-clones out there don´t sound like the real deal at all. Many of the newer mic pres sound a lot more "modern" than the vintage modules they were built after. Same goes for microphones - a U47 with a replacement capsule will not sound the same any more, because the diapragm material is different/softer.

And I would really like to see how somebody gets a smooth, soft (but not dull) vocal tone from a Brauner VM-1 compared to the tone of M49 for instance. It´s easy to say "you need to have a Neve pre/API pre/whatever pre" for a certain tone, but there´s more to it than just the pre.

[tobymusic]

Sorry if I came over a little harsh, didn´t mean to...

Thanks for the comments, interesting discussion!

[Dot]

Originally posted by tobymusic
...but there´s more to it than just the pre.

No one's saying there's not more to it than just the pre. Of course there is. But the pre is just as important as any other link in the chain.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by Dot
No one's saying there's not more to it than just the pre. Of course there is. But the pre is just as important as any other link in the chain.

And I must disagree. in order of importance, I'd put them in this order:
1: performer
2: instrument (voice is an instrument)
3: song
4: mic
5: acoustic space
6: everything else.

While I won't disagree that the pre AS AN AMP is important, the pre as a color is no more of an issue than the compressor or the EQ. On many signals, I don'tuse either a compressor or EQ...

[Dot]

Dave, the chain I'm referring to only includes the technical recording equipment part of the chain starting at the mic . For the sake of argument we have to at least assume that the song, performers, their instruments, and the space are up to snuff.

After that, the question is - as posed or challenged by tobymusic - do you really need these "classic" pres to get a classic sound?

[Jim Williams]

I wouldn't get so concerned over copying someone elses "classic sound". Get creative and create your own sound, that's how those "classic sounds" were created in the first place.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[warhead]

I agree with the sentiment of more mics more mics, but there are certainly some killer preamps out there that can take it to the next level. But the preamp is a much smaller part of the equation than typically swapping out the mic, if you've started with a decent preamp.

The "clone wars" are kind of productive, and kind of not. It's nice to be able to reach for the classic sound at a reasonable price, but on the other hand as Jim has said, maybe folks should focus more on their sound? We'd have more variety anyhow.

War

[toolstudio]

Hi,

nothing is a must.

If somebody makes a great production with a SM57 and a mackie pre, than fine.

I for myself want to make sure I use the best combination of gear on that source.
I can't work with only a few choices, therefor I have a lot of choices in my colour palette.
Today even more, I think the customer deserves it when he bookes the service.

There are so many colours,... you could change the mic, the pre,
even the combination with all the loading going on makes a big difference.

So for me having the classic stuff is a must.


wolfgang

toolhouse studios, germany

[not_so_new]

Hummm... maybe turn the question around on it's head.

Try this test, soup to nuts, on one song, same source, same room, same mic and cables, same format, same everything.

Now substitute a 1073 and a Mackie channel. Which finished recording will sound better??

I am not disagreeing with anyone that the audio industry might be hyping the importance of the pre-amp but I think the above test would open a few skeptical eyes. I would really love to see this done because we might all be able to save money on good pres, maybe my eyes would be opened who knows.

I do know that all the same old crap answers to me are just that, crap.



Yes the performer and the instrument and the room are very very important to the chain (I agree most important) but I would venture a guess and say that 95% of the people here are not JJP and don't get the opportunity to turn down many clients.

Personally, when I did this full time I took what I could to pay the bills and many gigs were with some pretty bad bands. Given the slop that we sometimes have to record I still think what happens from the microphone on in the signal chain is most important to OUR discussions. We don't control much of what we record but we do control how it gets recorded and I think preamps are pretty important in that chain.

[chetatkinsdiet]

This test has been done. Wasn't it Lynn at 3DAudio? I'm sure a quick google can find it. That's where they did the HUGE preamp test.
Really though, there's no right or wrong answer here. I'm sure we can all find a decent recording that was done on blackface ADAT's and a Mackie and I don't think anyone's questioning the quality of recordings done at the other end of the spectrum....API, Neve, Trident, etc.
If you're simply a/b-ing a Neve next to a Mackie in the same room on say a snare drum. Will you hear a difference between a and b? Hell yes. Is it worth the $3K or so per channel that the Neve will cost...hell yeah. Especially when you take that single channel and multiply it 20 to 40 times for every single track on the particular song. Things will sit better in the mix, they'll just sound right. The same thing on the Mackie might sound good, but it will definitely take more skills to get it to sound good.
I'm not a golfer, but a good comparison is golf clubs. I'm a total hack golfer. I could go out and buy the most expensive set of Ping or Callaway clubs in the world to try to improve my game. Will it help? Hell yeah. The clubs are more forgiving. They'll really make the ball sail when I do get a good hit, etc. Everything good about the game is better on these clubs. Do they still play the same as my old blade clubs? Yes. Do I use the same motions? Yes. But, given the fact that when I use these nicer clubs over the course of a full round of golf, I might be able to shave off 3-4 strokes off my game by them taking a so-so shot and making it a bit better.
If you're mearly taking one swing at the practice round with each, you might not notice $2000 difference in these clubs and your old ones. But after you play an entire round...I'm sure you'll be hooked.
The same can be said about the pres. Give me a whole record cut with API pres over the mackie anyday.
Clear as mud?
later,
m

[soundguy]

Everyone disregarding the importance of an amplifier owes it to themself to get an education. EVERYTHING in audio is an amplifier. There are amplifiers at use at every stage of the game and they should all be viewed with the same reverence, not just mic pre's. Anyone here who uses ribbon mics certainly knows how much their sound can change with the pre that is used and how it loads the circuit. A condenser microphone HAS AN AMPLIFIER IN IT (well, technically in many cases its an impedance conversion circuit but...). This can go on and on and saving a lenghty post, its very shortsighted to disregard the mic amp, or any amp in your signal chain as it completely determines what your recording will sound like. I would much rather do an entire record with a 421 or an SM57 ONLY and my choice of mic pre's rather than my wild choice of microphones and a mackie mixer. If you plug a really great mic into a pre that is full of limitations, you are never gonna hear how great that mic is, and its just really as simple as that. The amplifier will always be the source of limitation, you can have the best mic pres in the world, if the amps in your summing buss arent awesome, your mix is going to reflect that, this goes on and on. People dont fiend after certain old consoles just for the sound of the mic pres in them, thats for certain...

In the end, its silly to isolate any of the steps in the process and put all this focus on one thing or another, if you dont have a decent performance to record, it doesnt matter much what the hell you use to record it.

dave

[lucey]

A mic amp like an EMI and a 57 (on every instrument) will make a record that will sound totally different than a 57 and a Focusrite or an ART.

In that sense the pre amp is huge.

[DirkB]

I find that a top quality preamp really can get you that solid 3D signal that takes eq nicely.

Take a nice mic like a U195 and record a nice voice with the mic going into a TG2/API or into a focusrite platinum , boom all the 3D gone with the focusritedfegad .

SM57 into TG2 or SM57 into focusrite platinum for dirt guitars, nigth and day my friend NIGHT and DAY .

Greetings,
Dirk

[chetatkinsdiet]

Isn't it funny how the lowly 57 benefits the most from a great pre? Guys that kick it around and say they don't like them have probably never heard them through one of the above mentioned pres.
later,
m

[Snatchman]

See... this gets confusing ..again!.. .. I've asked this question before and get different replies every time ( guess this is why everyone has an opinion!). Some say," Get the great front end and the recording media is irrelevent. Others say, "Get rid of the crappy Adats and the front end you have will be fine!.. .. I know this all come down to me being the final "judge" for what I get but, Hey... I respect you guys opinions and advice. You've being doing this much longer, uses the top of the line gear, and have developed the "ears" for which to make these opinions relevant!....So... which is it?..

[lucey]

It's

the artist's performance

the mic AND pre combo placed in the room

the recorder

the mix

the master

[Volodia]

Comparing a TG2 or API to a Platinum Focusrite is not fair , but given the choice , if I have only say a Massenburg Pre and great mikes I don't mind not having API or Neve .
And the difference between a Coles 4038 and a static microphone will be greater than the one you get by using two different pres .
To each his own but providing you use a good pre a great mike will make a bigger difference .

Volodia

[Slider]

Do you need 1073's to make a good record? No.
Preamps and consoles absolutely do contribute to the overall sound of a record.
Although it's very easy to get overly precious about recording equipment.
I tire quickly of the endless A\B'ing of everything.

[Confusionator]

Well, speaking as someone who's tried hard over the years to skimp and save in various places, it's pretty clearly *everything* that's important.

If you care about your sound, eventually anything sub-par -- players, instruments, rooms, mics, converters, monitors, plug-ins, and, yes, preamps -- will drive you nuts.

You can make great records with modest stuff, but you can't fake world-class sonics. Wish you could....

[Drumsound]

Originally posted by Confusionator
Well, speaking as someone who's tried hard over the years to skimp and save in various places, it's pretty clearly *everything* that's important.

If you care about your sound, eventually anything sub-par -- players, instruments, rooms, mics, converters, monitors, plug-ins, and, yes, preamps -- will drive you nuts.

You can make great records with modest stuff, but you can't fake world-class sonics. Wish you could....

Yep!

[tobymusic]

>Hummm... maybe turn the question >around on it's head.
>
>Try this test, soup to nuts, on one song, >same source, same room, same mic and >cables, same format, same everything.
>
>Now substitute a 1073 and a Mackie >channel. Which finished recording will >sound better??
>

See, now it has happened again. This is exactly what I mean. The discussion has again focused totally on mic pres instead of microphone technique.

To answer your question: For most of the applications the 1073 will be better for sure. BUT now try this: keep the Mackie preamp (if it´s in good condition) and try a couple of different microphones - pick the one that works best. Now which recording will sound better??

Just tryin´ to shift the focus a bit more on microphone technique as opposed to the approach to fix it with gear/mic pres instead.

[toolstudio]

Originally posted by tobymusic
>Hummm... maybe turn the question >around on it's head.
>
>Try this test, soup to nuts, on one song, >same source, same room, same mic and >cables, same format, same everything.
>
>Now substitute a 1073 and a Mackie >channel. Which finished recording will >sound better??
>

See, now it has happened again. This is exactly what I mean. The discussion has again focused totally on mic pres instead of microphone technique.

To answer your question: For most of the applications the 1073 will be better for sure. BUT now try this: keep the Mackie preamp (if it´s in good condition) and try a couple of different microphones - pick the one that works best. Now which recording will sound better??

But maybe I make a mistake...this is not a recording forum, this is a GEAR forum.

I know what you mean, and I would agree that changing the mic will make bigger differences than changing the pre.

But with changing the Pres also, you double your colours.

I think Dirk said the 3D thing when working with great preamps, that's absolutly true !

I know some people like to record with one or only a few pres. On my sessions, I try to use as much different pres on sources as possible, and I found that the mix, and the separation in the mixes comes so much more easily.....


wolfgang

toolhouse studios, germany

[BenJah]

Cool discussion. I like to think of it this way. I could be wrong here but as I understand it, from mic to line level is an amplication of some 50,000 times. Any small error/unpleasantness at this stage is going to be compounded over and over. The preamp is a vital stage . Buying a descent pre has made the most overall difference to the quality of recordings that I make. It greatly increases my own enjoyment of listening to things I track. Who cares about the listener at the end of the day. Lets just make stuff sound the best we can.

[tobymusic]

Thanks to all for their contributions!
Would be interesting to hear some more experiences....

[doorknocker]

Preamp choice is very important and I think that there IS a reason why certain designs became classics.
Having said this, in a recent live tracking I used my ART PRO MPA for a Beyer M160 miced Marshall cab. The TG-2 that I usually would have chosen for this was put on the drum OHs. (I played guitar, now dig my selfishness!!).
I was surprised how good the MPA track sounded, actually I will probably use it much more again or at least put it up as contender against my other preamps. If it fits it's right and it's so easy to listen with your eyes instead of your ears anyway...

Let me also say that I would MUCH prefer doing a full record with just a MPA and a nice mic collection (instead of using a single 57 with a great pre selection) in fact I have done this for my very first project about 4 years ago and with decent results.
Ever since getting a few Beyers and a couple of SM7s, my 57s haven't seen much use anymore.


Andi

www.doorknocker.ch [/B][/QUOTE]

[not_so_new]

See, now it has happened again. This is exactly what I mean. The discussion has again focused totally on mic pres instead of microphone technique. To answer your question: For most of the applications the 1073 will be better for sure. BUT now try this: keep the Mackie preamp (if it´s in good condition) and try a couple of different microphones - pick the one that works best. Now which recording will sound better?? But maybe I make a mistake...this is not a recording forum, this is a GEAR forum.

I think you are exactly missing my point.



Yes things will be different if you use different mics but I can pretty much guarantee that if you find THE best mic that you can find for a given application and use THE best mic placement that mic will sound much better through a 1073 than a Mackie.

If you record a whole song with the best mics and the best mic placement that you can get for each instrument (like I said "all things being equal") the 1073 mix will probably sound better.

Again "all things being equal." So take JJP and plop him behind a Mackie board. His mix will sound better than my mix through a Neve board (this is not equal, JJP and I are different people) BUT take JJP and plop him in front of a Neve or SSL board and his Neve or SSL mix will sound better than his Mackie mix.

All things being equal mic pres and gear in general does matter a whole lot. All gear adds to the sound and better gear is going to sound better no matter wht your skill level is....

[byk]

Yes things will be different if you use different mics but I can pretty much guarantee that if you find THE best mic that you can find for a given application and use THE best mic placement that mic will sound much better through a 1073 than a Mackie.

If you record a whole song with the best mics and the best mic placement that you can get for each instrument (like I said "all things being equal") the 1073 mix will probably sound better.

Again "all things being equal." So take JJP and plop him behind a Mackie board. His mix will sound better than my mix through a Neve board (this is not equal, JJP and I are different people) BUT take JJP and plop him in front of a Neve or SSL board and his Neve or SSL mix will sound better than his Mackie mix.

All things being equal mic pres and gear in general does matter a whole lot. All gear adds to the sound and better gear is going to sound better no matter wht your skill level is.... [/B][/QUOTE]

Well put !

Only one thing: who is JJP ?


Thanks