|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 7:50:51 GMT -6
Hey all, I did a little preamp comparison in my buddy's writing studio yesterday and thought I'd share it with you guys. Nothing super scientific, I took a pair of matched Schoeps microphones, taped together on the same source. We recorded everything separately, kick , snare , hi hat, dobro, piano and bass since I only had one channel available of one of the preamps. These are the same takes on everything except the bass, as we only had one DI laying around. I was surprised at how different they sounded, I even thought maybe one of the mics was a bit off, so I switched mics at one point, and each preamp consistently sounded like it did with the other mic, so what you hear is really the preamp differences. Now I've already noticed my schoeps mics are very sensitive to what preamp comes after them. I have done little tests with these preamps with other mics and the differences weren't as obvious. I tried to match the levels as closely as possible during tracking but it's not a 100% perfect. Excuse the sloppy playing, we did this in like 20 minutes and my buddy just kind of improvised the parts, so timing is not perfect, and there are a couple sour notes but anyway it was fun! Both of theses preamps are around $700 so not super high end but not budget either. Tell me what you think. I'll reveal which is which very soon , don't worry you won't have to wait for weeks! www.dropbox.com/s/5jamhy88sgfnymj/TEST%20PREAMP%20A.wav?dl=0www.dropbox.com/s/2c7miyxso953smi/TEST%20PREAMP%20B.wav?dl=0Brice |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 6, 2019 8:25:20 GMT -6
Preamp B is wooly in the low end,
So I prefer preamp A it's more clean sounding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 6, 2019 8:59:45 GMT -6
Interesting shootout Brice. Preamp A presents a more balanced picture, preamp B is punchier with a bigger low end, (the kick is louder). If I had to use one of those tracks or the other, I'd take A for balance, and perhaps EQ a little, but I have a suspicion I'd prefer B for myself if I was putting tracks together. I liked the energy it had.
|
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 9:10:15 GMT -6
Interesting shootout Brice. Preamp A presents a more balanced picture, preamp B is punchier with a bigger low end, (the kick is louder). If I had to use one of those tracks or the other, I'd take A for balance, and perhaps EQ a little, but I have a suspicion I'd prefer B for myself if I was putting tracks together. I liked the energy it had. The low end of B is definitely quite a bit bigger! Actually the kicks are within 0,10 of a db, and I think that A is actually the one with higher peaks so B is not really louder but just sounds a lot louder. Overall I tend to like preamp A better with the Schoeps mics, particularly on something like piano were B tends to sound too blurry for my taste. On a guitar amp miced with an SM57, I gravitate towards preamp B for extra fatness. Bass DI sounds way better, for my taste through preamp B, fatter, more amp like, more compressed, makes it easier to play. I chose not to post individual tracks but I might if people are interested, but personally I'm more interested in how preamps stack. |
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 9:14:09 GMT -6
Btw, both of these preamps are clones of extremely famous, classic designs.
Anybody have any idea what they might be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 6, 2019 9:17:55 GMT -6
Neve style preamps usually have some big tight bottom, so I'd guess Neve, but then API is supposedly punchier, and track 2 was punchier. I haven't worked too often with API's. I'll stick with Neve for preamp B.
|
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 9:25:08 GMT -6
Neve style preamps usually have some big tight bottom, so I'd guess Neve, but then API is supposedly punchier, and track 2 was punchier. I haven't worked too often with API's. I'll stick with Neve for preamp B. You are correct sir, B is a pretty popular 1073 clone! Given that, if I remember correctly, I read here that you record with the Stam Neve, it would make sense that you'd gravitate towards B for your music! B is not the Stam btw and A is not an API. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 6, 2019 12:55:27 GMT -6
That leaves Trident, Helios, UAD 610, Harrison, SSL (if SSL is considered classic now). Maybe it's one of the Abbey Road style pres, like Dizengoff or Chandler?
|
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 13:22:26 GMT -6
That leaves Trident, Helios, UAD 610, Harrison, SSL (if SSL is considered classic now). Maybe it's one of the Abbey Road style pres, like Dizengoff or Chandler? Yep it's one of the Abbey Road ones! It's a tube preamp based on the REDD circuit built by Phaedrus Audio, the Phab it's called. The Neve style preamp in this comparison is the AML EZ1073 rack. |
|
|
|
Post by pope on Jan 6, 2019 15:46:06 GMT -6
Thanks for doing this!
What Schoeps did you use?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 6, 2019 15:53:28 GMT -6
I am listening again.
Preamp B has a huge thump on the bottom of the kick and snare drum.
So right now I think that's an improvement over preamp A on that source.
|
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 16:25:41 GMT -6
Thanks for doing this! What Schoeps did you use? You re very welcome These were cmc6 mk41! |
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jan 6, 2019 16:33:28 GMT -6
Option A sounded more balanced, yet also more veiled to me. I'm sure some EQ could open it up, but I preferred the B sound myself.
That AML costs $1K at Vintage King in a 500 series. Not sure if you are using the same model.
|
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 16:35:51 GMT -6
I am listening again. Preamp B has a huge thump on the bottom of the kick and snare drum. So right now I think that's an improvement over preamp A on that source. Yeah the bottom end is definitely a lot bigger. A bit too big maybe but easily sculpted with the eq. The phaedrus redd preamp however I sometimes find a little too light in the bass. But it's got some nice qualities. I find it has a depth that the Aml lacks. Like when I listen to the soloed kick drum ( the mic was about 2 feet away ), I can really hear how far the kick is from the mic, on the aml the sense of depth is a little blurrier, I can't quite pinpoint the location of the recorded sound. I had the chandler for a bit and it was everything the phab is but better, bigger low end and smoother highs yet retaining that clarity in the high end. I still really like the phab redd though, as it's super small, fits in a back pack and I know that what I'm gonna record with it is gonna be easy to mix, everything just fits together easily so for demo work / rough versions of songs it's awesome because I get something clear very fast. I'm still thinking of getting the chandler redd again, maybe at some point . |
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 6, 2019 16:37:47 GMT -6
Option A sounded more balanced, yet also more veiled to me. I'm sure some EQ could open it up, but I preferred the B sound myself. That AML costs $1K at Vintage King in a 500 series. Not sure if you are using the same model. It's the rack version of the aml, that you can get only directly from them, not the 500 series one |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 6, 2019 16:41:59 GMT -6
Funny, I guessed both correctly. That's gotta mean something, but I'm not sure what. I don't really have THAT much experience analyzing tone. As a musician I was always more concerned with the playing and singing, as a producer I was mostly concerned with getting the best possible performances under whatever the circumstances were. Only in the last few years have I paid any attention to gear whatsoever. So when I was producing in the late 80's, I'd be on a big board in a good studio, and just used Neumann's on everything. Never had a single complaint in the 10 years I was doing that.
I used to be into wine minutae, now I could care less. So, if someone asks me about wine, I tell them just spend $20, and it'll be good. Neumann's are like that, get an 87, and you're pretty good on anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 6, 2019 17:27:38 GMT -6
Hey all, I did a little preamp comparison in my buddy's writing studio yesterday and thought I'd share it with you guys. Nothing super scientific, I took a pair of matched Schoeps microphones, taped together on the same source. We recorded everything separately, kick , snare , hi hat, dobro, piano and bass since I only had one channel available of one of the preamps. These are the same takes on everything except the bass, as we only had one DI laying around. I was surprised at how different they sounded, I even thought maybe one of the mics was a bit off, so I switched mics at one point, and each preamp consistently sounded like it did with the other mic, so what you hear is really the preamp differences. Now I've already noticed my schoeps mics are very sensitive to what preamp comes after them. I have done little tests with these preamps with other mics and the differences weren't as obvious. I tried to match the levels as closely as possible during tracking but it's not a 100% perfect. Excuse the sloppy playing, we did this in like 20 minutes and my buddy just kind of improvised the parts, so timing is not perfect, and there are a couple sour notes but anyway it was fun! Both of theses preamps are around $700 so not super high end but not budget either. Tell me what you think. I'll reveal which is which very soon , don't worry you won't have to wait for weeks! www.dropbox.com/s/5jamhy88sgfnymj/TEST%20PREAMP%20A.wav?dl=0www.dropbox.com/s/2c7miyxso953smi/TEST%20PREAMP%20B.wav?dl=0Brice Can I say firstly, I just dig the piece of music.... reminds me of "The Band".... nice. I like B. Cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Jan 6, 2019 17:44:59 GMT -6
Neumann's are like that, get an 87, and you're pretty good on anything. Great advice, it work great for about 40 years with great result on more than ten of a thousand recording and albums in many style. !!!! |
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Jan 6, 2019 17:48:00 GMT -6
B got a better low end for my taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 7, 2019 3:31:30 GMT -6
Funny, I guessed both correctly. That's gotta mean something, but I'm not sure what. I don't really have THAT much experience analyzing tone. As a musician I was always more concerned with the playing and singing, as a producer I was mostly concerned with getting the best possible performances under whatever the circumstances were. Only in the last few years have I paid any attention to gear whatsoever. So when I was producing in the late 80's, I'd be on a big board in a good studio, and just used Neumann's on everything. Never had a single complaint in the 10 years I was doing that. I used to be into wine minutae, now I could care less. So, if someone asks me about wine, I tell them just spend $20, and it'll be good. Neumann's are like that, get an 87, and you're pretty good on anything. Yep, well done! I can understand that, I like reading about gear, and trying out new stuff, but when I'm recording I can't be bothered with trying out preamps, 90% of what I record is music that I write ( for tv and other things) and play myself and I'm just not patient enough to try every combination. If it sounds bad I'll switch mics but I never switch preamps, I like working fast and getting the ideas out. A while ago, I tried getting the right preamp/compressor combination for each take, and it just killed my workflow, there's an excitement for me when I record where I switch instruments, try this try that and worrying about which preamp to use made it feel like work... So what I usually do, is before I start a project, I record a snippet of an idea in the vein of what I'm gonna do with a couple different preamps, and then just stick to the preamp I find fits the project better and I don't give it a second thought. Particularly since, and I know this has been a subject for debate on quite a few audio sites, I feel that projects done with a single preamp are easier to mix, have better glue. If I ever switch preamps during a project, and that's super rare, it'll be for vocals, if the preamp just doesn't fit the voice or if I want the instruments to form one cohesive pack recorded with the same pre and the vocals to sit on top with a different vibe. I agree about the 87, it's a great mic, however I own one of the new AI ones and a studio I work in has some vintage ones and well, they sound unbelievably better ( for my taste ). Anyway that's kind of the way I feel about Schoeps mics, I put them on evrything, overheads? yep acoustic guitar?hey hell yeah , stand up bass, mandolin, accordion , they just sound great on everything, and with the multi capsule thing, very versatile: too much room on the cardioid, switch to hyper, want more air more space switch to the omni cap... |
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 7, 2019 3:38:45 GMT -6
Hey all, I did a little preamp comparison in my buddy's writing studio yesterday and thought I'd share it with you guys. Nothing super scientific, I took a pair of matched Schoeps microphones, taped together on the same source. We recorded everything separately, kick , snare , hi hat, dobro, piano and bass since I only had one channel available of one of the preamps. These are the same takes on everything except the bass, as we only had one DI laying around. I was surprised at how different they sounded, I even thought maybe one of the mics was a bit off, so I switched mics at one point, and each preamp consistently sounded like it did with the other mic, so what you hear is really the preamp differences. Now I've already noticed my schoeps mics are very sensitive to what preamp comes after them. I have done little tests with these preamps with other mics and the differences weren't as obvious. I tried to match the levels as closely as possible during tracking but it's not a 100% perfect. Excuse the sloppy playing, we did this in like 20 minutes and my buddy just kind of improvised the parts, so timing is not perfect, and there are a couple sour notes but anyway it was fun! Both of theses preamps are around $700 so not super high end but not budget either. Tell me what you think. I'll reveal which is which very soon , don't worry you won't have to wait for weeks! www.dropbox.com/s/5jamhy88sgfnymj/TEST%20PREAMP%20A.wav?dl=0www.dropbox.com/s/2c7miyxso953smi/TEST%20PREAMP%20B.wav?dl=0Brice Can I say firstly, I just dig the piece of music.... reminds me of "The Band".... nice. I like B. Cheers Wiz Thanks ! Yeah we're going to record a couple songs à la Neil Young, The Band, stuff like that. This one is super rough as my buddy is usually not the one playing everything... I'm looking forward to cranking up my fuzzed out deluxe and record a couple Neil Youngish leads! I'm actually surprised everybody is picking the AML Neve, I love that pre but I actually think the Phab is a much better representation of what it sounded like in the room. The low end is bigger on the Neve, even though I feel it can sometimes sound a little uncontrolled, but with a little hipass filtering It's easy to get rid of some of the mud on some instruments. Anyway the Phab has its uses, the other day, I was doing a kind of beatles/60s brit pop thing, and driving it hard into an opto comp just sounded finished, no eq needed. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 7, 2019 11:05:27 GMT -6
My experience recording with Blue Oyster Cult over the decades, the idea of making a record was that the recording was going to sound a lot better than it did in the room when we were recording it. : )
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2019 12:44:09 GMT -6
Purposely haven't read the rest of the thread...my initial thoughts are that they're pretty damn close. I thought A had more bottom...but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2019 12:45:29 GMT -6
B seemed a little more bright/detailed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2019 12:48:27 GMT -6
Damnit - I actually had them backwards...when you click on the link it opens up A in the browser window then click on B it opens a new browser window, but places the tab before A...so I was flipping back and forth between B on the left and A on the right...So, just switch my answers.
|
|
