|
Post by rowmat on Jan 2, 2018 17:06:51 GMT -6
lately i've been reading a lot of what silvia massey thinks. she says preamps are the most important part of the signal chain. in her case she is referring to neve but goes further and says without good pres she wouldn't bother recording. Guess I totally disagree with Sylvia Massey then. I’d much rather record a vintage 47 through a presonus mic pre than a Blue Spark through a V76. I'm a bit on the fence with this. As long as you avoid absolute crap in both the mic and pre then a midrange priced mic into a compatible midrange priced pre may often be preferable (on specific sources) to a high end mic into even a high end pre (let alone a cheap nasty pre) that is not sympathetic to the mic with relation to the source. For instance if you could completely bypass the internal tube micpre in the Redd mic and feed it directly into a Presonus preamp, or lets say even a Millennia, I wonder if it would even be useable on much of anything? In the case of the Redd mic it appears they have tuned the capsule for big lows and bright airy highs and then configured the tube pre to tame any potential nasties.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 2, 2018 17:12:46 GMT -6
Sylvia used an AKG (ackk) C1000S wrapped in foam to record some Tool vocals.
She also records amps through pickles and potatoes.
My guess is that she doesn't give a f%ck.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 2, 2018 22:53:33 GMT -6
If I get a chance I'll see if I can gouge, but it may be a while. FYI, there's no EQ on anything, I do that purposely, so the comparison is as fair as I can make it. I do roll off vocals below 30HZ though. As best as a I could, the vocals were at the same level. I realize the Stam vocal in the mix sounds louder, but the meters were as close as I could make them. The Stam is bringing more of certain frequencies, that's the way a Neve sounds.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 2, 2018 23:05:40 GMT -6
If I get a chance I'll see if I can gouge, but it may be a while. FYI, there's no EQ on anything, I do that purposely, so the comparison is as fair as I can make it. I do roll off vocals below 30HZ though. As best as a I could, the vocals were at the same level. I realize the Stam vocal in the mix sounds louder, but the meters were as close as I could make them. The Stam is bringing more of certain frequencies, that's the way a Neve sounds. Martin, you can just normalize the audio files. Say like normalize both to -24 RMS. That way you don't have to rely on eyeballing the meters, which is always iffy. It's still clear that the Stam sounds better though, level discrepancy aside.
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Jan 3, 2018 5:51:39 GMT -6
Thanks for the comparison, John. I hear the Stam stomping on the UAD in every contest and the full mix comes together natuarally with the depth and width greater than in the soft mix which is to my ears just ok, but not near the sonic ballpark of the Chilean offering.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 3, 2018 9:03:35 GMT -6
Thanks Ragan, I'll try that next time.
Thanks iamasound, I wasn't biased, in fact it would be great if the plug-ins were so close it didn't matter, but they're not obviously. That's why I'm glad there are companies like Stam making such good sounding gear. This way I don't need to have the money for a vintage or new Neve to get in that same ballpark.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jan 3, 2018 15:13:05 GMT -6
My only real issue with this shoot out is that it's not all the same take. I do a lot of shoot outs. I tend to shoot out preamps before doing my YouTube videos to make sure the preamp I use has the right vibe for the song. I find if something is close people will lean toward either the louder take or the better take. Normalizing can help, but if one take is a bit more dynamic than the other they will still be a bit different from each other in volume. That said, having spent a little time with Martin I can say he has a really consistent voice. Somehow I think the Stam would have won anyway, but I heard another shoot out between the UAD 1073 and the new AMS 1073 and it was a little closer. So I'd be curious to hear what it would sound like to split the same signal between both units, at the same gain levels, then normalize them.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 3, 2018 15:52:46 GMT -6
It seems that no matter how it's done there are ALWAYS issues. I realize the inherent issues with my kind of comparison, but I personally don't love the two mics/same take method either, because no matter how close you get them, we all know moving a mic over an inch or two in a room can change everything, and the voice direction always seems to favor one mic over the other.
I do think these methods show you enough to get the general idea though. Funny, but in this case, I think my performance was actually a little better on the UAD tracks, even though I'm pretty good at repeating something nearly identically, (thanks for that compliment Vincent, coming from you, it means a lot).
This is one of the best shootouts I've ever seen, the producer has 8 or 9 of the best compressors made today, and runs a track through each one. You can clearly hear differences. He's got a pretty impressive rig there. That's actually easier to do than printing duplicates of all the tracks with the thing your comparing like I do, and then comparing mixes too, but I've found my method gives people a pretty good idea how a thing sounds, and it's fun to see.
Next time I'll try normalizing like Ragan suggested. I just remembered something I once did, a friend had finished recording his album, but there was an issue with noise on one acoustic guitar track. He couldn't get that guitarist back in time to re-record, so he asked me to play that guys part, but exactly like he played it, and I mean down to every single down or upstrum. It was an odd request, but somehow I did it.( he's a close friend, and he's done 5 major label albums and produced dozens of other artists).
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 3, 2018 16:21:06 GMT -6
Regards things being the same take...
Whilst I understand the logic, consider this...
You, me, We!! all comp parts from different takes.....
Is it really such as issue...
Should we not be able to decide, like we do on a daily basis when comping?
thoughts
Cheers
Wiz
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by ericn on Jan 3, 2018 17:30:52 GMT -6
Regards things being the same take... Whilst I understand the logic, consider this... You, me, We!! all comp parts from different takes..... Is it really such as issue... Should we not be able to decide, like we do on a daily basis when comping? thoughts Cheers Wiz Having done a million shootouts with guys buying mics, the thing about different takes is guys tend towards the mic with the best performance putting to much weight on the performance vs the sound of the mic! This why I started to hang and keep a reference mic up so each take could be examined next to the consistent reference, I also found the guys who took the files listened for a couple of days tended to gravitate towards the best mic for their voice (okay they also tended to spend more). My boss was always pissed when they didn't walk out with a mic, but was all smiles when they came back spent more and said glowing things about the no pressure aproach and being able to listen in the car, at the studio etc rather than deciding on what they heard at the store. In fact is was funny how in the terrible demo room we had how many would gravitate towards the 87, but in the end would end up with a Gefell!
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jan 3, 2018 21:09:01 GMT -6
I am really just nitpicking at this point. It still shows how they both sound. I feel like the Stam is more open with a richer bottom end over all. I wish my ACMP-84 sounded like that. It's more open, but with less bottom end than the UAD 1073. I wish Joshua would offer a 1084 model. I think it would sell like crazy. No one offers anything but a 1073 and the 1084 is a more versatile EQ. When I used the pre at Martin's I noted the bottom end's size. Very nice. This year will be a year of outboard stuff. This one is one my possible list, although probably 2 channel the rack version.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 3, 2018 21:34:04 GMT -6
I am really just nitpicking at this point. It still shows how they both sound. I feel like the Stam is more open with a richer bottom end over all. I wish my ACMP-84 sounded like that. It's more open, but with less bottom end than the UAD 1073. I wish Joshua would offer a 1084 model. I think it would sell like crazy. No one offers anything but a 1073 and the 1084 is a more versatile EQ. When I used the pre at Martin's I noted the bottom end's size. Very nice. This year will be a year of outboard stuff. This one is one my possible list, although probably 2 channel the rack version. In the world of semi-pro/home recording more people have heard of the Neve 1073 as being THE Neve piece of gear to own. Of course the 1084 is basically a deluxe version of the 1073 with two extra EQ shelving points and selectable 'Q' on the midband and an adjustable low pass to compliment the high pass filter. I guess while this adds somewhat to the cost over a 1073 including at least the two additional high shelving bands of the 1084 in a clone makes it a much nicer proposition IMO. The 16khz shelving bands on our Heritage Audio 8173's and 6673's get used far more than the 12khz and 10khz bands unless EQ'ing older darker ribbon mics which tend to roll off earlier.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 3, 2018 23:22:35 GMT -6
There are some differences, the biggest to me is the STAM sounds like it is being pushed in the gain and the low end is getting a wee bit smashed helping to get that in-your-face thing. Awesome. Plugins hurt at doing that, the STAM nails it. I guess I'm curious: what is the absolute cleanest sound you can get out of the STAM? Preamp gain backed way down.. output all the way up. I'm wondering is that is where the UA got its sound? Because the plugin sounds, well honestly.. I just don't like it. Not that its really bad, its just not saying anything to me that its doing something good. Cause its not doing the in your face thing, and the highs don't sound really that special. And the lows aren't as good. I'd probably rather just bypass the plugin, live with the raw tracks.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 3, 2018 23:33:38 GMT -6
Theres some differences, the biggest to me is the STAM sounds like it is being pushed in the gain and the low end is getting a wee bit smashed resulting that in-your-face thing. Awesome. Plugins hurt at doing that, the STAM nails it. I guess I'm curious: what is the absolute cleanest sound you can get out of the STAM? Preamp gain backed way down.. output all the way up. I'm wondering is that is where the UA got its sound? Because the plugin sounds, well honestly.. I just don't like it. Not that its really bad, its just not saying anything to me that its doing something good. Cause its not doing the in your face thing, and the highs don't sound really that special. And the lows aren't as good. I'd probably rather just bypass the plugin, live with the raw tracks. This +100. I'd take the (very useable, well designed Burr Brown based) stock Apollo pres over the Unison stuff, personally.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jan 4, 2018 7:23:32 GMT -6
Theres some differences, the biggest to me is the STAM sounds like it is being pushed in the gain and the low end is getting a wee bit smashed resulting that in-your-face thing. Awesome. Plugins hurt at doing that, the STAM nails it. I guess I'm curious: what is the absolute cleanest sound you can get out of the STAM? Preamp gain backed way down.. output all the way up. I'm wondering is that is where the UA got its sound? Because the plugin sounds, well honestly.. I just don't like it. Not that its really bad, its just not saying anything to me that its doing something good. Cause its not doing the in your face thing, and the highs don't sound really that special. And the lows aren't as good. I'd probably rather just bypass the plugin, live with the raw tracks. This +100. I'd take the (very useable, well designed Burr Brown based) stock Apollo pres over the Unison stuff, personally. You know, I use the unison UAD1073 and UAD88R all the time. I prefer them to the stock pres. The 88R is a much cleaner, but still Nevish sound. They are both a little more vibey than the stock pres. The stock pres aren’t bad though. The UAD610A sounds better than the 610B, but distorts easier which is agrivating. The 610B is a little dark compared to my solo 610 unit, which is already a pretty dark tube pre.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 4, 2018 7:43:46 GMT -6
I'm with Vincent. Even though they might not win all the shootouts, the UAD Unison preamps do add 'something' that I like when tracking most sources, vs the naked Apollo pre. If I didn't know any better, I would say they sound quite good in general.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jan 4, 2018 9:58:22 GMT -6
That said, I just tested my FleA 49 through the UAD1073 and it kept distorting like crazy on my voice with the gain stage at 40db. I had a similar issue with the BLUE Stage II. hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 4, 2018 10:18:24 GMT -6
Yeah I didn’t mean to imply that I thought the Unison stuff was objectively bad, just that I didn’t dig it and liked the preamps without the Unison plugins better.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 4, 2018 11:59:06 GMT -6
That's kind of the thing though, isn't it. The plug-ins sound fine when you're only using them, but put the hardware they're emulating in another track to compare, and it becomes obvious there are differences. Of course on occasion the plug might be the better fit, but I think overall, the hardware just sounds better.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jan 4, 2018 13:28:04 GMT -6
Yeah I didn’t mean to imply that I thought the Unison stuff was objectively bad, just that I didn’t dig it and liked the preamps without the Unison plugins better. Sometimes I record with the UA stock pres and put the UAD channel strips on afterward. I find that works well too.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 4, 2018 13:59:53 GMT -6
I am really just nitpicking at this point. It still shows how they both sound. I feel like the Stam is more open with a richer bottom end over all. I wish my ACMP-84 sounded like that. It's more open, but with less bottom end than the UAD 1073. I wish Joshua would offer a 1084 model. I think it would sell like crazy. No one offers anything but a 1073 and the 1084 is a more versatile EQ. When I used the pre at Martin's I noted the bottom end's size. Very nice. This year will be a year of outboard stuff. This one is one my possible list, although probably 2 channel the rack version. I believe some folks have swapped the output transformer in the TNCs for a Jensen for less low end roll off. Not as Neve-y, but an option. I'd be interested to try the JLM output transformers in mine. Although I'm on the fence about investing in mine, as they're my utility pres anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jan 4, 2018 15:39:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 4, 2018 22:30:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jan 4, 2018 22:59:13 GMT -6
They look pretty similar. Revive replaces the transistors and caps as part of their circuit mod, with additional cost for the carnhill transformers. They will also replace the knobs with Neve Style knobs for another small fee. Ultimately, Zen only offers mods for the productst on their site. Revive said they had Modded TNCs before and could provide the same mod with the same pricing. Not bad. I just have to put the cash together for it, and it’s not quite #1 on my gear to do list yet.
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Jan 5, 2018 5:14:48 GMT -6
Regards things being the same take... Whilst I understand the logic, consider this... You, me, We!! all comp parts from different takes..... Is it really such as issue... Should we not be able to decide, like we do on a daily basis when comping? thoughts Cheers Wiz Having done a million shootouts with guys buying mics, the thing about different takes is guys tend towards the mic with the best performance putting to much weight on the performance vs the sound of the mic! This why I started to hang and keep a reference mic up so each take could be examined next to the consistent reference, I also found the guys who took the files listened for a couple of days tended to gravitate towards the best mic for their voice (okay they also tended to spend more). My boss was always pissed when they didn't walk out with a mic, but was all smiles when they came back spent more and said glowing things about the no pressure aproach and being able to listen in the car, at the studio etc rather than deciding on what they heard at the store. In fact is was funny how in the terrible demo room we had how many would gravitate towards the 87, but in the end would end up with a Gefell! That's exactly my personal experience. I REALLY wanted to own an 87, but after putting everything up equally in a comparison shootout decided correctly that the Gefell umt70s would, at least for the forseeable future, be my best choice. When next I have the infusion of geld will be looking at a Soyuz as well as the Redd and the Flea 47. The Gefell is one heck of a fine microphone to my old ears and I am happy to have it.
|
|