Post by jeromemason on Jan 7, 2019 15:33:36 GMT -6
I haven't read any of the thread, but B has a tighter bottom and sounds like it pulls the average level up a bit. I don't know how accurate the waveforms are in dropbox, but A looks like it's eating more dynamic range but B sounds louder, or just more together. Either or for me, both could serve a purpose, but I'd imagine B would get you more variety and use.
I'd probably lean A, but could make a record with either one. B sounds more 'set back', more flattened, more controlled, A sounds more dynamic and open. Easily depends on the mic. These are the kind of choices I make in every session with all the different preamps I have here.
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. : )
I totally agree! ( big BOC fan by the way! my dad gave me the agents of fortune LP as a kid and it was one of my introductions to Rock ! and I finally got to see you guys in Paso Robles a couple years back).
For 90% of what I do, I enjoy colored preamps, but occasionally, like when I'm recording Grand Piano, something super clean just sounds better to me, less smearing of all the overtones.
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 9, 2019 8:17:55 GMT -6
Really interesting answers in this thread. Like most people apparently in this thread I usually gravitate towards the AML/Neve sound, once I remove a little of the excess bottom I get a vibe that I love. Not as bright as the other one, but punchier and fits a lot of the Americana type of stuff I record.
I just pulled up the tracks and did a 3 minute rough mix to see what I could get a little hipass here and there and a couple treble boosts and I get something I like.
I still find the Phab sounds closer to a mix when just pulling up the faders, but the AML, even after some pretty heavy Hipassing has extra weight that I just can't get with Phab, no matter what processing I apply.