The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Same pre for everything?
Old 23rd December 2017
  #31
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

There's no better sounding "glue" than using all the same preamp. A whole lot of us didn't like the sound of the early SSLs which led to the use of outboard preamps.

As for the amount of money floating around, most studios leased their consoles and multitrack machines. Recording engineers almost never owned studios.
Old 24th December 2017
  #32
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
There's no better sounding "glue" than using all the same preamp. A whole lot of us didn't like the sound of the early SSLs which led to the use of outboard preamps.
Right, but no studio owner was going to buy 56 of the same thing and risk getting it wrong X 56.
Old 24th December 2017
  #33
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

By that time we were really into Les Paul Memorial Overdub Parties so one or two would suffice. Another factor was engineers renting outboard gear to projects as an extra source of income.
Old 24th December 2017
  #34
Lives for gear
Anytime you blend sources from different mic's and preamps, I think they mix easier because they don't fight each other with the same sonic signature.

Another important factor is that some mic's match better with some preamps.

Typically the best results are from a ying/yang relation. Bright mic+Dark preamp. Or Tube mic+ solid state pramps, etc....

However there are always exceptions. I like all toms going through the same preamp for example.

The cost however, is more time understanding what each piece of gear has to offer and how to best use it. Using a single flavor of preamp is faster to work with as a result.
Old 24th December 2017
  #35
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
Anytime you blend sources from different mic's and preamps, I think they mix easier because they don't fight each other with the same sonic signature.
Have you ever tried it both ways?

A while back I tracked a whole, simple song from the ground up using a Sennheiser 421 and an API pre on one track, with whatever combo I thought best on a separate track. By the time I got through enough of it to have a semblance of a song, the difference was pretty clear. The 421/API tracks hung together much better, and this was with a modest mic that almost anyone can afford.

I should've finished it out both ways for comparison's sake, but I didn't. Maybe someone else can.

Also, as far as the "same sonic signature" thing goes, sometimes the ability for the ear to pick out individual instruments is exactly what you don't want. Often people doing TV music and ads and such are trying to get the most apparent "size" out of the fewest players. So they'll have the piano and acoustic guitar play a block chord part together. It's supposed to sound like one big expensive "whoom" that you're not quite sure what it is; if you as the engineer have made the piano and guitar audible as two distinct things, you've screwed it up. Same thing with accordion doubling strings -- twice the heft in the string parts for only one additional session fee. If it's easy to tell there's an accordion in there, it's a fail. Not having the same signal chain for stuff like this would definitely make the job harder.
Old 24th December 2017
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorboy View Post
One Pre to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.
By “darkness”, you mean warmth.

Right?
Old 24th December 2017
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I'm pretty sure there's a really easy basis of comparison.

Play the record.

What you hear will be the fact.
What you hear will be subjective
Old 24th December 2017
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
What you hear will be subjective
Nope.

Your conclusions from what you hear will be subjective.

What you hear will be a fact and it would be the same sound waves that anyone would hear listening to the same record in the same room on the same system.

No memory from 30 years ago is required to hear what old gear sounds like.
Old 24th December 2017
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Right, but no studio owner was going to buy 56 of the same thing and risk getting it wrong X 56.
I am, I think 12 Sebatron AXIS preamps and cool!
Old 24th December 2017
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
Nope.

Your conclusions from what you hear will be subjective.

What you hear will be a fact and it would be the same sound waves that anyone would hear listening to the same record in the same room on the same system.

No memory from 30 years ago is required to hear what old gear sounds like.
That's a curious statement - a soundwave is a fact, sure, but it's nothing more than a wave being formed through compression and rarefaction of molecules driven by air pressure.

It's the brain that decodes that information into something that represents, to us, "sound"; and it's the brain that assigns a qualitative value to that sound - all sound "quality" (which is your point, after all) is subjective, not factual.

You can say, as a fact, something has greater fidelity, or less fidelity because you can measure it, but you can't say something with better fidelity necessarily "sounds better", because that's subjective; i.e., a Fender Deluxe Reverb has far less fidelity than a high end, solid state, home stereo power amp, but which would you rather slam your Les Paul through?

Your example of a 30 year old recording fails simply because all it is, is a 30 year old recording, like an old snapshot - it cannot tell you what the session sounded like to the people in the room while it was going down, anymore than you can know what a 40 year old Prophet 5 actually sounded like when it was new - no recording of one from 40 years ago will do that. A recording is a recording is a recording, with thousands of variables contributing to the final result - it's not a scientifically accurate measurement of what something sounded like. What we needed to see in Bushman's example, was measured data from 30 years ago supporting the engineers assessment's about the SSL's fidelity vs the Harrison, API's, Neves etc. of the era.

We cannot rely on aural memory, it's our worst sense memory - we can't remember what something sounded like a few seconds ago, let alone years into the past. What things actually sounded like many years ago is lost to time.

I take all these things with a grain of salt, I believe our brains want to remember things a certain way (especially when confronted with something new, our expectation bias goes nuts) , but they probably weren't nearly as good as we think they were.
Old 24th December 2017
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
That's a curious statement - a soundwave is a fact, sure, but it's nothing more than a wave being formed through compression and rarefaction of molecules driven by air pressure.

It's the brain that decodes that information into something that represents, to us, "sound"; and it's the brain that assigns a qualitative value to that sound - all sound "quality" (which is your point, after all) is subjective, not factual.

You can say, as a fact, something has greater fidelity, or less fidelity because you can measure it, but you can't say something with better fidelity necessarily "sounds better", because that's subjective; i.e., a Fender Deluxe Reverb has far less fidelity than a high end, solid state, home stereo power amp, but which would you rather slam your Les Paul through?

Your example of a 30 year old recording fails simply because all it is, is a 30 year old recording, like an old snapshot - it cannot tell you what the session sounded like to the people in the room while it was going down, anymore than you can know what a 40 year old Prophet 5 actually sounded like when it was new - no recording of one from 40 years ago will do that. A recording is a recording is a recording, with thousands of variables contributing to the final result - it's not a scientifically accurate measurement of what something sounded like. What we needed to see in Bushman's example, was measured data from 30 years ago supporting the engineers assessment's about the SSL's fidelity vs the Harrison, API's, Neves etc. of the era.

We cannot rely on aural memory, it's our worst sense memory - we can't remember what something sounded like a few seconds ago, let alone years into the past. What things actually sounded like many years ago is lost to time.

I take all these things with a grain of salt, I believe our brains want to remember things a certain way (especially when confronted with something new, our expectation bias goes nuts) , but they probably weren't nearly as good as we think they were.
I didn't make any statement about anything sounding better or worse than anything else. I haven't attached any value statement to anything...new gear, old gear, borrowed gear, blue gear. That's a red herring.

I responded to the statement that people only have their memories to rely on to know what gear sounded like 30 years ago. That's simply untrue.

People made recordings with that gear. That was kind of the point of the whole exercise, you know?

If you want to know what a recording made with old gear sounds like, all you have to do is listen to the recordings that were made with that gear. They're still around. The original vinyl, not even re-mastered, is still around. Used, but easily found in most cases online.

If you want to know what a recording made with Neumann U48s and Studer J37s sounds like, just get a Beatles record from that period and listen to it for yourself.

You might like or you might not—that's not the point—but you don't have to call Geoff Emerick and ask him what he remembers that it sounded like 50 years ago, which was the claim. You just listen for yourself.
Old 24th December 2017
  #42
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
Nope.

Your conclusions from what you hear will be subjective.

What you hear will be a fact and it would be the same sound waves that anyone would hear listening to the same record in the same room on the same system.
No, hearing really is subjective. We all have somewhat different physiology (ok, not hugely different probably in most people except in uncommon cases) and different minds. There is no hearing outside the context of a lifetime of cultural influence and personal experience, and the way you hear has to do with the way your mind has developed which is not transferable.

This is crossing over into another current thread, but for example, musicians tend to show different brain activity on MRIs than non musicians. This includes the way the brain works with the auditory nerve which relates to the way that musicians can "hear" something that only exists in their mind.
Old 24th December 2017
  #43
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
We cannot rely on aural memory, it's our worst sense memory - we can't remember what something sounded like a few seconds ago, let alone years into the past. What things actually sounded like many years ago is lost to time.

I take all these things with a grain of salt, I believe our brains want to remember things a certain way (especially when confronted with something new, our expectation bias goes nuts) , but they probably weren't nearly as good as we think they were.
Is that true about aural memory ?

The thing is none of them are particularly good when it comes to memory. I often recommend the books the Invisible Gorilla or Thinking Fast and Slow when it comes to the subject of how deeply unreliable and subjective memory and visual observation are. It can be really unsettling to learn about that.
Old 24th December 2017
  #44
Lives for gear
 
razorboy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
There's no better sounding "glue" than using all the same preamp. A whole lot of us didn't like the sound of the early SSLs which led to the use of outboard preamps.
"" I don't really mind where I work at the end of the day, as long as I don't have to work on an SSL desk. That's my only stipulation.""
Gus Dudgeon (Elton John, David Bowie, etc..)

"""Apart from his forcefully expressed distaste for SSL consoles, which he dislikes because of their sound, Gus Dudgeon doesn't insist on any particular choice of studio gear. He does, however, have fond memories of the consoles made by now-defunct American company MCI: "The MCI desk in my opinion was the best-sounding desk of all time, because it didn't have any quirks or weirdness about it. I came across the MCI desk by accident, when we went to do the stuff in France with Elton. I went to the chateau when I was checking the studio out, and in order to get into the control room you had to walk through the live area. There was a band playing, called Zoo, and as I walked through the studio, I could hear their drummer playing. I walked from the studio into the control room, and I heard exactly the same sound. That had never happened to me in my entire life. I kept walking in and out of the control room and into the studio, and I thought 'I can't believe this. I'm hearing, near as dammit, exactly what I'm hearing out there.' And it turned out to be an MCI desk. The nearest you get to MCI nowadays is the Focusrite, of which there are very few — I think there's only two left in the UK, sadly — and you can also tweak a Euphonix to sound a lot like an MCI. Most of the Focusrite outboard boxes you can buy all have that kind of MCI quality. People love them, but they don't realise that there was a console once where the whole console sounded like that."""
Gus Dudgeon
Old 24th December 2017
  #45
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
Is that true about aural memory ?

The thing is none of them are particularly good when it comes to memory. I often recommend the books the Invisible Gorilla or Thinking Fast and Slow when it comes to the subject of how deeply unreliable and subjective memory and visual observation are. It can be really unsettling to learn about that.
Yes, detailed audio (aural) memory is only very accurate when a comparison is instantaneous, or very close to that.
That is why many of the heartfelt statements on Gearslutz about how much better a system sounded after a new “device X” was patched in can’t be taken seriously. It isn’t that the posters are intentionally dishonest, it is the time involved in making the switch that makes the comparison invalid. That’s one of the reasons why mastering engineers usually have some kind of switching mechanism that makes instant comparisons of condition A to condition B possible.
Old 24th December 2017
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I didn't make any statement about anything sounding better or worse than anything else. I haven't attached any value statement to anything...new gear, old gear, borrowed gear, blue gear. That's a red herring.

I responded to the statement that people only have their memories to rely on to know what gear sounded like 30 years ago. That's simply untrue.

People made recordings with that gear. That was kind of the point of the whole exercise, you know?

If you want to know what a recording made with old gear sounds like, all you have to do is listen to the recordings that were made with that gear. They're still around. The original vinyl, not even re-mastered, is still around. Used, but easily found in most cases online.

If you want to know what a recording made with Neumann U48s and Studer J37s sounds like, just get a Beatles record from that period and listen to it for yourself.

You might like or you might not—that's not the point—but you don't have to call Geoff Emerick and ask him what he remembers that it sounded like 50 years ago, which was the claim. You just listen for yourself.
Your example of the old recording is invalid, I explained why - yet you repeated and elongated your inaccurate assertion. You either don't understand the science of sound and hearing, or your ego won't allow you to consider someone else's point.
Old 24th December 2017
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
No, hearing really is subjective. We all have somewhat different physiology (ok, not hugely different probably in most people except in uncommon cases) and different minds. There is no hearing outside the context of a lifetime of cultural influence and personal experience, and the way you hear has to do with the way your mind has developed which is not transferable.

This is crossing over into another current thread, but for example, musicians tend to show different brain activity on MRIs than non musicians. This includes the way the brain works with the auditory nerve which relates to the way that musicians can "hear" something that only exists in their mind.
In the context of this discussion, so what?

You can still tell what the recordings made with old gear sound like TO YOU simply by listening to the recordings. You still don't have to rely on someone else's 30 year old memory or description to be able to know what it sounds like TO YOU. Nothing you guys keep saying changes the point.

That said, if you're going to be that pedantic and digital about this then no one can tell what brand new gear sounds like to anyone but themselves either. So who is the poster to whom these replies are directed to opine about new gear or old gear or any gear? He only knows what it sounds like to him, not what it really sounds like, which, according to the two of you, is 100% non-transferrable to anyone else.
Old 24th December 2017
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
In the context of this discussion, so what?

You can still tell what the recordings made with old gear sound like TO YOU simply by listening to the recordings. You still don't have to rely on someone else's 30 year old memory or description to be able to know what it sounds like TO YOU. Nothing you guys keep saying changes the point.

That said, if you're going to be that pedantic and digital about this then no one can tell what brand new gear sounds like to anyone but themselves either. So who is the poster to whom these replies are directed to opine about new gear or old gear or any gear? He only knows what it sounds like to him, not what it really sounds like, which, according to the two of you, is 100% non-transferrable to anyone else.
Since we're repeating ourselves, do you really believe a 40 year old recording of a prophet five, on a piece of vinyl, tells you what original sounded like? What you're hearing is a lot of variables, like whatever signal chain was used to record, the particular p5 (they all varied), the person playing it, the process of mixing and mastering, the vinyl copy you've got plus the cartridge, stereo amp, speakers, the room - the fact that it'll sound different on ten different playback systems - all that vs the actual sound of the thing when it was new.

It's simply not possible to discern, through recordings, what things actually sounded like because the recording is its own entity, it's not a representation of an accurate reality - and thank goodness for that.
Old 24th December 2017
  #49
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
In the context of this discussion, so what?

You can still tell what the recordings made with old gear sound like TO YOU simply by listening to the recordings. You still don't have to rely on someone else's 30 year old memory or description to be able to know what it sounds like TO YOU. Nothing you guys keep saying changes the point.

That said, if you're going to be that pedantic and digital about this then no one can tell what brand new gear sounds like to anyone but themselves either. So who is the poster to whom these replies are directed to opine about new gear or old gear or any gear? He only knows what it sounds like to him, not what it really sounds like, which, according to the two of you, is 100% non-transferrable to anyone else.
Hold on a second - now you're the one getting dualistic about this. I never said it was 100% non transferable. The way things sound is neither perfectly transferable nor perfectly non transferable.

I think the subjectivity of it is an important point. It's not about this whole context specifically; you made a narrower comment about subjectivity and based on that I replied on that specific comment because it's not that narrow.
Old 24th December 2017
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
Hold on a second - now you're the one getting dualistic about this. I never said it was 100% non transferable. The way things sound is neither perfectly transferable nor perfectly non transferable.

I think the subjectivity of it is an important point. It's not about this whole context specifically; you made a narrower comment about subjectivity and based on that I replied on that specific comment because it's not that narrow.
He's moving the goalposts around - it's hard to know what his point is except he thinks recordings are the ultimate arbiter of what certain things sounded like - in spite of the thousands of unknowable variables contained in every recorded work.
Old 24th December 2017
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Your example of the old recording is invalid, I explained why - yet you repeated and elongated your inaccurate assertion. You either don't understand the science of sound and hearing, or your ego won't allow you to consider someone else's point.
I think you're right in that there's someone around here whose ego won't allow them to consider someone else's point, but I think it's demonstrable simply by reading the thread that that person isn't me.

I learned in kindergarten that when I point my finger at someone else there are three fingers pointing back at me. That's a hint as to who the person with the fragile ego might be.

Here are the problems with your incorrect claim that the an old recording is an invalid assessment because too many variables affect the end result (as well as other problems with your whole narrative):

1. The variables that went into what it sounded like in the room played back during the sessions were every bit as significant as the list of variables that affected what the end result recording sounded like. The room itself, the acoustic treatment of the room, and the monitoring/playback system being the biggest. Those are pretty huge variables. So if listening to the end result is invalid due to the inability to control for important variables, so is listening during the sessions in the room.

2. The clear implication of your posts is that old gear isn't what it's cracked up to be and that people romanticize what it sounds like and their memories fool them. Well if that's true and there's just no way to know what it sounded like back then, then how do you know people's memories are wrong in THAT direction? In other words, it's just as likely that it sounded even BETTER than people remember it and even better by an even BIGGER margin than new gear. Remember, we can't go by the finished recordings under your paradigm b/c too many variables went into the results, so no fair pulling those things out to compare. So why is the automatic assumption that people's memories artificially inflate the sonic fidelity rather than memory degrading sonic fidelity?

3. Another assumption you are making is that someone attempting to get a feel for what older gear sounds like are only interested in one or two elements of a recording. Say, the tape machine and the console, for example. But if their goal is to assess the entire process and replicate it as much as possible, such as with Daptone Records, then I would say that is as valid a comparison as any other comparison made from a whole recording, be the gear new, old, or otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you posted. And sure, you can't tell everything about what a Neve 8078 console sounded like just by listening to something that was recorded at Sound City in 1985. And yeah, a lot of young people these days do things like chase the "sound of tape," without knowing what that even means.

But it's pedantic to the point of being silly to claim that you can't tell ANYTHING by studying those recordings either.

And finally, it's not just people who think that old gear sounds better that fall victim to confirmation bias and cherry picking what they want to emphasize to fit their pet narrative.

Have you A-B ed your DAW against a tape machine? Same room, same musician playing the same instrument with the same microphone through the same signal chain monitored through the same playback system?

I have. And my opinion of the results is not relevant to this discussion, but I can tell you that you may prefer either one over the other, but unless you have the tiniest of tin ears, you'll hear a big difference between the two if you ever do.

Yet every single time I run across a person here who wants to defend their choice to not use tape anymore they always tell me how long they cut tape before deciding that there wasn't enough difference between tape and digital to keep using tape. Fifteen years, twenty years, etc. Of course, it was 20 years ago that they stopped using it, and when I ask them if they've done a direct comparison such as the one I mentioned above, the answer is always no.

So why is it the assumption that only the people who "romanticize" old gear have it wrong? Why shouldn't I assume that the guy who has gladly recorded digitally itb for the past 15 years remembers tape and console fidelity just as wrong as the guy who mourns the good old days?
Old 24th December 2017
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Since we're repeating ourselves, do you really believe a 40 year old recording of a prophet five, on a piece of vinyl, tells you what original sounded like? What you're hearing is a lot of variables, like whatever signal chain was used to record, the particular p5 (they all varied), the person playing it, the process of mixing and mastering, the vinyl copy you've got plus the cartridge, stereo amp, speakers, the room - the fact that it'll sound different on ten different playback systems - all that vs the actual sound of the thing when it was new.

It's simply not possible to discern, through recordings, what things actually sounded like because the recording is its own entity, it's not a representation of an accurate reality - and thank goodness for that.
The recording is the entity that matters. The consumer (to the degree that they even care what it sounds like at all) doesn't care what it sounded like to you standing in the control room. They care about what it sounds like to them in their car.

To act like the recordings are irrelevant when the recordings are the entire point of the exercise is silly.
Old 24th December 2017
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
He's moving the goalposts around - it's hard to know what his point is except he thinks recordings are the ultimate arbiter of what certain things sounded like - in spite of the thousands of unknowable variables contained in every recorded work.
What I think is that recordings are the ultimate arbiter of what recordings sound like.

A very radical statement that requires a lot of goalpost moving, I know.

And btw, when you get to the point of replying to other posters in a conspiratorial manner so as to troll for approval by framing a shared enemy, well, you'e making it even clearer who the person with the ego problem is.

If you guys can tell me what the point of recording is if it's not to make recordings, maybe I might see why you're emphasizing certain points.

I doubt you can, though. So I'm going to let you have the last word on the subject, as I am satisfied that you have already contributed everything you could possibly contribute to my understanding of recording, which is why I come here.
Old 24th December 2017
  #54
Lives for gear
 

I always wondered what console was used for Bernstein's Omnibus broadcasts, and what micpres were being used for the RCA ribbon mics (maybe one or more of the 44 flavors and/or KU-3A?). These are most visible at about 2m12s into this: YouTube

A console filled with V76m? Probably not, I'd guess. But does anybody know?
Old 24th December 2017
  #55
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
I spent a year at Amigo (the old Warner Brothers Studio) in North Hollywood in the mid 80's, and the SSL was locked up in a closet while everyone continued on the Harrison - soup to nuts recording and mixing on it, as I recall.
Video universe is no different. I was a shooter/cutter in a large facility where we used Ampex R to R and Betacam machines with a switcher for editing. In the mid 90's, we shelled out $100,000+ for a Media Composer. It sat unused for a year until I challenged the manager to a cutting duel for a tight deadline news show we did. After that, the analog system was rarely used.
Old 24th December 2017
  #56
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
No, hearing really is subjective.
No doubt. If one ever wants to test this, try mixing a song with the band in the room.
Old 24th December 2017
  #57
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by razorboy View Post
"The MCI desk in my opinion was the best-sounding desk of all time, because it didn't have any quirks or weirdness about it. I came across the MCI desk by accident, when we went to do the stuff in France with Elton. I went to the chateau when I was checking the studio out, and in order to get into the control room you had to walk through the live area. There was a band playing, called Zoo, and as I walked through the studio, I could hear their drummer playing. I walked from the studio into the control room, and I heard exactly the same sound. That had never happened to me in my entire life. I kept walking in and out of the control room and into the studio, and I thought 'I can't believe this. I'm hearing, near as dammit, exactly what I'm hearing out there.' And it turned out to be an MCI desk. The nearest you get to MCI nowadays is the Focusrite, of which there are very few — I think there's only two left in the UK, sadly — and you can also tweak a Euphonix to sound a lot like an MCI. Most of the Focusrite outboard boxes you can buy all have that kind of MCI quality. People love them, but they don't realise that there was a console once where the whole console sounded like that."""
Gus Dudgeon
This was a NEW MCI!

Unfortunately, MCI employed a disastrous wave solder machine that left cold solder joints everywhere. This resulted in really bad audio from used ones. The problem was so expensive to repair that most of the leading studios using MCI chose to move on to a new, preferably automated console.
Old 24th December 2017
  #58
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Having lived through the transition from tubes to chips to software, I don't think it matters for the most part unless the preamp is total crap.

The reasons I think older recordings can often sound better are excellent arrangements, fewer overdubs, and musicians having many times the amount of stage experience compared to most of the people recording today. In other words, what was in front of the microphones sounded better.
Old 25th December 2017
  #59
Gear Nut
 

Amen Bob... and Merry Christmas to all!
Old 25th December 2017
  #60
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
Anytime you blend sources from different mic's and preamps, I think they mix easier because they don't fight each other with the same sonic signature.

Another important factor is that some mic's match better with some preamps.

Typically the best results are from a ying/yang relation. Bright mic+Dark preamp. Or Tube mic+ solid state pramps, etc....

However there are always exceptions. I like all toms going through the same preamp for example.

The cost however, is more time understanding what each piece of gear has to offer and how to best use it. Using a single flavor of preamp is faster to work with as a result.
On lead vocal overdubs, I like routing each word to a different mic and pre. Especially when I need certain words in the lyric to really pop. A Chandler Germanium is king on the overdubbed word "shake". Some vocalists know when to stop singing and leave out every third word for later overdubs. Others just overdub word by word anyway.... gives me lots of time to set up the alternate gear.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump