When does the mic pre make enough of a difference?

[Majoria]

Since I only have a hobby level home studio, I don't have any decent mic pres. I use the 4 built in ones on my 003R and for the other 4 I use my Mackie 1402VLZ. With my array of mics, how much difference would I get from the Mackie vs something like an RNP?

 

Mics I have include:

AT4040

AT4041

Beta52A

SM57's

EV N/D408B

A variety of cheaper mics

[Phil O'Keefe]

I have not heard the 003's mic preamps yet, but I'd much rather use the RNP than the 002 or Mackie 1402 preamps.

 

As with using different microphones, different mic preamps have different sonics and character. Will you be able to hear a difference between the RNP and the other two preamp flavors? Probably; especially if you can hear a difference between the two "flavors" you have on hand now.

 

Even inexpensive microphones can sound noticeably different with a different mic preamp - for example, a SM57 will sound quite a bit different when going through a Great River than it will through the Mackie VLZ preamps. Your mikes are not all that bad at all, and IMO, you would be well served with some different options. Adding a RNP and maybe a GT Brick would give you some cool sounding and different options at reasonable price points.

[Majoria]

Right now I can't hear a lick of difference between any preamp, mainly comparing the 003 and the 1402. Of course, I also really can't tell any difference between an MP3 and a CD (sorry audio engineers but I have yet to talk to a non-AE who can tell the difference). I use KRK 5's as monitors but I also tested the sample recordings in my truck and still can't hear a difference. Is the difference really subtle to the average Joe?

 

Hence why this is a hobby and not my career.

[alcohol]

I think that the difference between mic pres is especially obvious on Kick Drums and Bass Guitar. If you use ribbons you need a lot of clean gain. You can hear a difference there. The differences are subtle, and become more apparent with different microphones.

[alphajerk]

sounds like you need to work on your critical listening skills. there will come a day when you listen to your stock pre's and then use something better and not be satisfied with your stock ones anymore... or simply want more variety.

 

main things are their transient response rates [how quiclky they react and recover], their bandwidth [width of the signal from high to low], their emphasis [of freq spectrum]... and none of these are better or worse, but only are dependant on what you are trying to do with the signal.

 

mics tend to have a broader palette and easier to discern than preamps.

[TimOBrien]

When it makes a difference:

 

When you've paid so much of your hard-earned cash for the pre that you play back your tracks to everyone and say "WOW!!! LISTEN to the DIFFERENCE!!!"

 

;-))

[Majoria]

sounds like you need to work on your critical listening skills.

 

The word "duh" is coming to mind....

 

But this touches on a related concept. If it takes an experienced audio engineer to tell the difference then critical listening skills can't be that critical. If my sister can't tell the difference between a recording with 1402 pres and some $3000+ pre while driving around in her Windstar, then why use them? Am I trying to impress other audio engineers? Average people I know even with high dollar sound systems couldn't tell much of a difference between a functional mic and a good mic, so how much less of a difference will there be with the same mic but a different pre? I know that a trained ear can't just untrain themselves and listen to something that way but as I stated earlier, I have yet to meet an average person who can tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 yet most audio engineers think of MP3's as such an injustice to their ears.

 

Seems like it takes a trained ear and possibly also a good system to tell many differences. That's why I ask when they make that much of a difference since I can't tell the difference between anything I have right now. I was thinking that my mics may not be at the level where a pre will make as much of a difference but Phil seems to think that a trained ear could notice a difference. And I'm obviously not someone with a trained ear, I'll be the first to admit that.

 

Maybe a better question: has anyone done an AB comparison complete through the final mix between a good pre and a entry level one and have sound clips to share?

 

Yes, I know that the high end stuff is worth it, I'm just wondering if the cost justifies the gain.

[blue2blue]

I don't think it takes a trained engineer.

 

I do think a lot of folks don't have good systems -- in fact most folks have truly awful systems -- particularly a lot of musicians -- and that is a big factor.

 

 

If you want to impress your friends by picking out, say 128 kbps MP3s from CD versions, you want to spend some time listening to well-recorded source material... I like things with dynamic range and an audible ambience in the recording... a cymbal tail in a bright room with natural reverb is a good tell... On a 128 mp3 (over a good playback system) it should be fairly easy with such material to hear the difference as the cymbal and ambient reverb die out in the recording... The Mp3 will rapidly loose definition and sparkle as the sound decays, much faster than with the full-data CD recording.

 

 

Back on topic centerstage: a friend and I did a "shootout" of my array of low-end mic pres, my own VLZ board (a 24-04) and his brand new RNP.

 

I was surprised to find I liked the Mackie pres better than the other boxes -- even though they all cost hundreds per channel -- with the exception of the RNP, which had a decidedly characterful but, I thought, really flattering sound.

 

We also used the RNP with an RNC and compared it to combo pre-compressors from ART and Joe Meek and the combination was pretty killer vis a vis the other boxes which, with the exception of the less expensive ART (a Tube PAC) were roughly the same price range as the RNP/RNC per channel, IIRC.

 

Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting experiment. I'd been using my outboard pres out of habit and assumption. What I ended up doing -- since I like to use some compression going in when I know precisely what I want, as I usually do -- was patching my ART Dual Levelar (a limiting amp style compressor/limiter) between the direct out of the Mackie's channel strip (which removes everything but the trim control) and thence to my audio interface. And, while I still remember the RNP/RNC combo as being more flattering, I find I'm really liking my "lowly" Mackie pres. (At this point I tend to like cleaner, less colored pres, I think.)

[Phil O'Keefe]

Hint: Mic preamp differences really become apparent when you start stacking multiple tracks with the same pre...

[blue2blue]

Hint: Mic preamp differences really become apparent when you start stacking multiple tracks with the same pre...

No kidding!

 

An excellent and important point.

 

Particularly with "character" preamps.

 

I "grew up" mainly on two boards, a 24 x 8 TASCAM from the late 70s and a 16 x 4 Neve.

 

The Neve was, of course, creamy. It was smooth, fat, warm, all those silly words. But if you stacked up 16 tracks of it in a project (or more, since we did a fair amount of bouncing in both 16 track studios) the sound could be almost syrupy instead of creamy. (These were academic environments and, at the school with the Neve, things weren't helped by the careful note-taker-algorithm-follower types who would do everything precisely like the teacher -- in every case -- whether it was warranted or not.)

 

The sound of the TASCAM board was... well... not absolutely the greatest but considerably more neutral/transparent. And mixes coming out of it sounded a lot less character-stamped than off the Neve. (That said, the school with the Neve had much nicer mics, had a couple of decent compressors, and a plate reverb, the equipment was properly repaired and the teacher knew what he was doing, unlike the other school [when I tested into the Neve school, my teacher at the TASCAM school took the entance test, too, on a lark, and barely got a good enough grade to be accepted into the program, and about 10 percentage points below mine. Maybe he should have gone through the other school's program. It might have saved him from some truly embarrassing gaffs -- I wonder if he ever learned to gain stage a board for mixing properly?])

 

(They tried to replace the Neve [to be moved into another, to be constructed smaller studio] with the old VAC custom board from the then-just-dismantled Gold Star studio in LA where Spector and others worked in the halcyon days of the 60s... but it was a disaster. I kinda remember it as an API. But, really, the thing could never be got to work all the way through and it was finally abandoned, bringing the Neve back online right at the end of our second year for finals mixing... it was NOT a happy year, there, hands-on wise. Got some good verbal and book learning, though. But I actually learned more about real work and real sessions at the crappy, slapped together TASCAM school, as its pool of musicians was FAR better than the suburband, whitebread types at the Neve school. At that school, all my fellow recording students were gaga over two bands: Toto and Rush. That was pretty much the cultural run there. It was stultifying.)

[Majoria]

Hint: Mic preamp differences really become apparent when you start stacking multiple tracks with the same pre...

 

And now a question from the novice: are you talking about duplicates of the same track or just using the same pre on the guitar, keys, bass, drums, voice, etc? I was thinking of using the same but better pre for everything that I recorded but was curious if that was ok or discouraged. Sounds like for me it may be the way to go.

[alphajerk]

same pre across the whole shebang... you start to stack up that sonic signature on the whole. some people like that and will do that. others like the variety like you use with different mics.

 

ultimately its personal preference... and also, just because they are cheap doenst make then unuseable... nor do expensive ones make them better in the situation.

 

its really something you have to try things out on your own and make your own conclusions.

[varakeef]

One thing appeared to me immediately: why not use just different pre's in a project instead of good pre's if the differences become apparent when project is stacked with plenty of tracks recorded with similiar pre's?

[alphajerk]

i could be very happy stacking a rock project with quad8 console pres/eq's and not mind one bit.

[linwood]

Here's some food for thought, but of course Frank's a gifted cat.

 

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/chuck-ainlay-ed-cherney-frank-filipetti-george-massenburg-elliot-scheiner-al-schmitt/48065-hey-frank-question-line-em-up.html

[I was The Funk]

 

One thing appeared to me immediately: why not use just different pre's in a project instead of good pre's if the differences become apparent when project is stacked with plenty of tracks recorded with similiar pre's?

 

 

 

Good point. And you will get better results generally with different mid-level pres then with only the same mid-level pre (most interfaces have what i would consider midlevel pres....not bad but not incredible either).

 

Just like mics. If you use SM57's for every track, it will sound like you used SM57's for every track. If you use a variety it will sound better even if they aren't real expensive mics.

 

But you do get what you pay for and often times if you use a combination of really nice pres (and really nice mics) the results will be better.

 

that said, I think WAY too much emphasis is placed on outboard pres. These are products that didn't even exist a few years ago. The pres in most decent audio interfaces kick the ass of what a lot of your favorite recordings were made on. Only the real high dollar studios could have the good boards back in the day, so mid-tier bands were not necessarily using crazy boards to do their stuff. Technique and mic choice will most likely get you further. When you've exhausted that and you are looking for that next level, then a few nice pres and a real good set of converters can make the difference.

 

Its not the gear....its the knowledge.

[UstadKhanAli]

To answer your original question, I think that a mic preamp, just like any other part of the signal chain, can make a huge difference, especially when tracks are "stacked", as Phil points out.

 

I noticed a huge difference when I switched from Mackie VLZ Pro mic preamps to RNP mic preamps, for example. And so did my band.

 

And also, since I brought up signal chains, I also noticed a HUUUUUGE difference when I upgraded from Digi001 A/D converters to Apogee A/D converters. And so did my band.

 

These differences were not subtle. And they're even less subtle when you stack the tracks. Things are not only clearer and fuller and more present, they're also easier to MIX.

 

Obviously, good microphones help a great deal. But every part of the signal chain makes a huge difference, and to my ears, upgrading the mic preamps and the converters made a huge difference. It's now so much easier to get a good sound going. I don't feel like I am "battling" to get a great sound anymore. That's the difference. I can record a a really good sounding CD on Mackie mic preamps, but I can make a great sounding CD with better mic preamps, and not struggle to achieve that sound.

[linwood]

....and don't forget the importance of the source,( good player, great instrument/vocal) but I guess that's a given.

[UstadKhanAli]

....and don't forget the importance of the source,( good player, great instrument/vocal) but I guess that's a given.

 

And room...but yeah, I would *hope* those are a given. It'd take a real moron to think, "Hmmmm, the player sounds like ass and his instrument sounds horrible...why can't I get a good sound?"

[jamesp]

OTOH, I've heard ass and thought, "Man, that ass sounds great!"

[linwood]

 

the player sounds like ass and his instrument sounds horrible

 

 

Sounds like you've witnessed some of my sessions. I can't wait to get the Antares Digital Mistake Eliminator.

 

Hey Ken...I always gig your photos! just had to tell ya.

[Phil O'Keefe]

The pres in most decent audio interfaces kick the ass of what a lot of your favorite recordings were made on.

 

I don't know if could sign off on / completely agree with that...

 

Discrete and tube 1073's, V72's, API's, U/A, Tridents, Soundcrafts... vs opamp preamps? While I agree that most "bundled" (IOW, included with modestly priced boards and audio interfaces) preamps today are generally better than what was available on budget products in the 70's / 80's, most of the major label stuff from the 60's - 80's used what I consider to be sonically superior preamps, even if the majority of those records were all recorded with primarily just a single preamp type - the board preamps.

 

Tracking multiple parts with the same mic and / or preamp can be thought of as analogous to stacking multiple guitar parts with the same guitar and amp. If you stack three or four parts with a Telecaster, you're going to accentuate the characteristics of the Tele - bright, snappy, etc. That may be what you want, and there's nothing wrong with that per se, but by using different guitars, amps and settings for some of the overdubs, you can allow the individual parts to occupy different parts of the frequency spectrum, and they'll fight with each other less, and be easier to hear / differentiate from each other in the mix.

 

Also, in addition to the sonics changing with different mikes and preamps, the differences in sonics also change significantly with how you have the pre set up, and what you're "feeding" it. If you're running a clean and relatively consistent signal (no wide dynamic changes) into an opamp pre and a tube pre, and both are set with sufficient headroom, the sonic differences are going to be more difficult to hear than if you run a highly dynamic signal into each, with the peaks approaching the clipping points.

 

While I love Neve and Neve-esque preamps, if you stack multiple parts with one, you can get some low-mid buildup. While you might want that extra girth for your lead vocal - to give it some power and weight, if you also track multiple BGV parts through it, it might be counter-productive; especially if you want to differentiate the lead vox from the BGVs.

 

Does this mean you can't do good recordings with inexpensive preamps, or with just one "type" of preamp? Of course not. And there are some excellent bargains available in the budget price range. For example, the FMR RNP is an outstanding product, with performance that belies its "affordable" price point. I consider the Groove Tubes Brick to be a similar "overachieving" bargain. One isn't better or worse than the other - just different. And the two compliment each other very well...

 

In general, I find that the closer to the source you go, the more noticeable the sonic differences are. IOW, you'll often notice a bigger difference by substituting a different microphone than you would by using the same mic with a different pre. OTOH, a preamp amplifies what is coming out of the mic, and does make a significant sonic contribution of its own. Transformers vs. transformerless, tube vs. discrete Class A solid state vs. opamps... it all makes a difference. Then again, you'll probably notice an even bigger difference if you substitute a nice Martin in the place of an inexpensive Takamine... but maybe that inexpensive Tak has exactly the sound you're looking for on a particular track or part... as Alphajerk said, it all comes down to preferences, and there is no "right or wrong" - but I do think that having various preamp options to choose from is generally a "good thing", just as having different instrument, microphone and acoustical environment options can be beneficial.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Sounds like you've witnessed some of my sessions. I can't wait to get the Antares Digital Mistake Eliminator. Hey Ken...I always gig your photos! just had to tell ya.

 

 

Oh, cool! Thanks!! Glad you like them!!!

[UstadKhanAli]

Someone apparently said: The pres in most decent audio interfaces kick the ass of what a lot of your favorite recordings were made on. I don't know if could sign off on / completely agree with that...

 

You might be being polite, Phil, but I'd have to say that I strongly disagree with that statement. It's difficult to find a mic preamp that outdoes an FMR RNP, let alone outdoing APIs, Neves, etc.

 

What has happened, though, is that you can get a decent mic preamp for cheap now, something that has really changed.

[alphajerk]

 

While I love Neve and Neve-esque preamps, if you stack multiple parts with one, you can get some low-mid buildup.

 

 

which neve? the only one i have heard that it could happen with is the 1073 with marinair trannies in it.... the 1079 is more scooped in the low mids, and hte 1073 with st ives sounds more simlilar to that. the GR NV sounds like a 1079 but a tad different.