|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 24, 2016 9:43:02 GMT -6
Was just reading Joe Cameron's blog about what's most important...not sure I agree with him about the pre bing the most important, but he makes good points. rascalaudio What are your thoughts? Here's a link to his blog - some great stuff there. joelcameron.com/blog/2016/3/8/gear-talk-perhaps-the-most-critical-piece-of-gear-in-your-studioJoel Cameron March 8, 2016 It's always touchy trying to claim one piece of gear the most important piece in the studio. After all, there are many critical pieces of gear -- monitors (your gotta be able to hear what you're recording and mixing!), microphones (first link in the chain), converters, recording platform, acoustic treatment, etc... all important to getting great results. Of course there are the artistes of the engineering world who will always interrupt such conversations with the obligatory, "your ears are the most important piece of gear in the studio," or some other such truthful, yet completely off-topic comment to show the richness of the depth of their experience and wisdom. Psshh. I'm talking about gear here -- stuff you purchase. Everyone with a recording program wants to know what gear they need to get great results, and with that ever-present question in mind I will venture an opinion -- one developed over many years of observation. What is the most important piece of gear in a studio (i.e. where should you commit your dollars)? The microphone preamp. Not monitors? Nope. Every single day folks all over the planet do great work on modest monitors (NS10s anyone?). They don't have to be full-bandwidth, killer, high-dollar, self-powered client impressors. They just have to be familiar to you. You need to be so familiar with their response that you can trust what you're hearing from them, so you can make mixing decisions with confidence. What about the mic? It's the first part of the chain. Yes, your choice of mic is critical, but now, more than ever, there are tons of solid-performing, reasonably-priced mics on the market, from tube and solid-state condensers to dynamics and ribbons. Most folks can assemble and impressive mic cabinet without too much difficulty or expense. And I'd much rather record a modest microphone with a killer mic preamp than a killer mic through a modest preamp. "Why," you ask? Professional microphones produce a balanced, low level output signal. For this signal to be useful it must first be amplified a LOT to feed the input of a balanced, line-level signal processor or recorder input. Most any microphone signal will see a minimum of 20dB of gain to be useful. That's a 10x increase over the mic's output. If you require 30dB of gain, that is a 31.6x increase. 40dB is 100x. And any signal that requires 60dB of gain has to be increased 1000x! That's a lot of amplification, and the manner in which it is accomplished has everything to do with determining the quality of your signal when it moves to the next device in line. Comparatively, an inexpensive line-level device (such as a compressor) has both line level inputs and outputs (essentially a unity gain device). If your gain reduction is around 10dB (which is a lot, actually), then the compressor's output stage has to produce only just over a 3x increase in signal to produce the same level of output on louder passages... a much simpler task that can be done well with even modest circuits. But the mic preamp.... your microphone's low-level output, no matter how pristine it may be, will require such gain before it becomes useable that it is literally at the mercy of your preamp. Skimp here and your $3000 tube mic could lose much of its pricey luster. And once the damage is done there is no whiz-bang device that will restore what has been lost. Nothing. A quality mic preamp will produce a solid, focused, fully intact signal ready for recording or further processing. Some designs produce solid, but accurate signals (sometimes referred to as a 'straight wire with gain'). Being a rock dog I'm personally a fan of preamps that bring a little sex to the party, and give the signal not only a solid focus, but some rich color as well to add some visceral spice. For these reasons I'm a fan of older style designs with transformers that saturate, round transients, and generally thicken the whole affair in a glorious way. Mmmmm...... transformers.... (Okay, I'm getting off topic...) Like I say, I'd rather record a modest mic through a killer preamp than a killer mic through a modest preamp. Ideally both would be killer, but if I gotta choose one I'm going with the preamp. It'll improve my results with every mic I plug into it. 0 Likes |
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Mar 24, 2016 10:03:40 GMT -6
I'd take an SM7 with a Neve 1081 over a 251 through a presonus any day of the week.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 24, 2016 10:07:50 GMT -6
Hey @jordanvoth, check this article out. Makes me want more preamps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 24, 2016 10:24:32 GMT -6
See - I'd much rather have a 251 through a Presonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 24, 2016 10:34:58 GMT -6
It should be noted here that just as the writer recognized the plethora of good, low cost mics on the market today, the same could be said for preamps.
Importance aside, there are many great amps on the market today that can be had for under $500.
If we want that little extra of coarse were going to have to pay for. And there is an audible difference in a 2k amp and a $500 dollar amp, no question in my mind.
So for me?? It's mics in the order of importance.
Proven it to myself time and time again.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 24, 2016 10:42:29 GMT -6
chicken egg horse cart.
If the mic is affected greatly by the preamp type (some are), the preamp becomes an important choice. If it's not, then you can use almost anything, and color choices are lesser decisions.
I have more preamps than mics, because when I was buying gear there were not many affordable quality mics an there were tons of great deals on vintage preamps. That's all reversed in the last decade, I'd never buy those pre's at current prices, and there are a ton of decent mics I could try today at much lower prices than I could then. Starting over I'd probably have a better balance of both.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957 
|
Post by ericn on Mar 24, 2016 10:49:28 GMT -6
The thing is he ignores one basic fact of all mics and speakers,
Transducers are the highest distortion devices in the whole chain!
Your choice of mic is like your choice of guitar amp your choosing what distortion colors your source in the way that works for your project.
The thing is we have all found a relatively inexpensive mic at some point that just works, that in no way means the choice isn't important in fact it shows its more important!
As far as speakers well it's not about what you spend its about knowing them!
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Mar 24, 2016 11:02:21 GMT -6
Quick thought experiment..
You have $1000 dollars to buy an all-purpose mic and pre. Doesn't matter so much what they are, just what they cost. Without naming a brand or model, what would you spend on each?
I'm going with ~$500 on the mic and ~$500 for the pre.
Now bump that up to $2000.
>$1200+ on the mic and <$800 for the pre
Bump it to 4000 and I'm pretty sure I'd be spending the lion's share on a mic. Maybe 2600/1400.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 24, 2016 11:07:35 GMT -6
chicken egg horse cart. If the mic is affected greatly by the preamp type (some are), the preamp becomes an important choice. If it's not, then you can use almost anything, and color choices are lesser decisions. I have more preamps than mics, because when I was buying gear there were not many affordable quality mics an there were tons of great deals on vintage preamps. That's all reversed in the last decade, I'd never buy those pre's at current prices, and there are a ton of decent mics I could try today at much lower prices than I could then. Starting over I'd probably have a better balance of both. The mic-preamp interaction needs to be talked about more often. I've found this more important to overall tone of a mic than people ever know. For instance, it certainly doesn't turn an sm57 into a U47, but it makes the SM57 into a much better mic.. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 24, 2016 11:08:55 GMT -6
this is like Groundhog Day.
The answer is always....FOR WHAT?
Meaning--where a simple dynamic is called for--close mic'ing...and transient detail is high--ie, drums and Egtr....preamps make more difference than the mic--but, more specifically, dynamic mics are just inexpensive, but aren't "inferior"....so, it's not that the mic doesn't matter--a Tele 251 recreation on an amp would suck balls through any preamp. But, a 57 does a nice job on a snare drum....an sm7 on a close mic'd vocal or amp....etc--and because they rely more heavily on the preamp for gain, color, and it's imepdence loading effects them more--preamp....all the way.
BUT....for an acoustic guitar or a voice....piano....mic is GOD. Preamp is simply "how it gets louder" and is reponsible for the last say 5% of sonics.
This is why guys cutting rock bands in their studio will always say preamp, preamp, preamp....and JK, frankly most songwriter type home recordists should side with mics--what DO they record? Vocals. Acoustic guitars mainly.
This is why anyone who says they have "the answer" to that question as one or the other is patently wrong. Like the person who has "the best mic" for a project studio. Or the "right compressor". By definition, a project studio is that-it's for recording whatever small microcosm of the artistic world works there.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 24, 2016 11:09:41 GMT -6
And I went through this type of existential gear dilemma years ago..
Personally I found that monitoring is the highest priority.
So what if you have a good mic and good pre if your speaker flatters every signal, or if the speaker hides every nuance. You'll be over/under compensating everything based on what you hear.. Or rather, what the speaker allows you to hear.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbunch on Mar 24, 2016 11:15:35 GMT -6
I think that the pre is a huge part of the chain, especially if it's a dense mix. And I'm using budget gear. I'll take my sm57 -> nv73 over my cm6 -> Apollo silver face pre any day.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957
|
Post by ericn on Mar 24, 2016 11:24:29 GMT -6
this is like Groundhog Day. The answer is always....FOR WHAT? Meaning--where a simple dynamic is called for--close mic'ing...and transient detail is high--ie, drums and Egtr....preamps make more difference than the mic--but, more specifically, dynamic mics are just inexpensive, but aren't "inferior"....so, it's not that the mic doesn't matter--a Tele 251 recreation on an amp would suck balls through any preamp. But, a 57 does a nice job on a snare drum....an sm7 on a close mic'd vocal or amp....etc--and because they rely more heavily on the preamp for gain, color, and it's imepdence loading effects them more--preamp....all the way. BUT....for an acoustic guitar or a voice....piano....mic is GOD. Preamp is simply "how it gets louder" and is reponsible for the last say 5% of sonics. This is why guys cutting rock bands in their studio will always say preamp, preamp, preamp....and JK, frankly most songwriter type home recordists should side with mics--what DO they record? Vocals. Acoustic guitars mainly. This is why anyone who says they have "the answer" to that question as one or the other is patently wrong. Like the person who has "the best mic" for a project studio. Or the "right compressor". By definition, a project studio is that-it's for recording whatever small microcosm of the artistic world works there. The thing is every pro I have ever had this discussion says mic choice is his top priority, not cost choice! Also most pros have always been more willing to try a different pre on the fly, because they no it won't screw up what their mic is giving them. The mic pre fashion, is a Gearslutz/ Mix Mag / gear pimp phenomenon . If people knew how many great sounding records were the result of most of the tracks being cut with the pres on the board! |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 24, 2016 11:25:07 GMT -6
I'm gonna be that guy... It's the song and perfor...... Just kidding 8)
But, I'll take a 57 and presonus in a GREAT ROOM, over a 251/1081 in a mediocre room. The importance of the room gets completely skated IMO, it's a bigger factor than almost all gear.
|
|
rigo
Full Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by rigo on Mar 24, 2016 12:47:12 GMT -6
Hey gang--I'm new here but have been checking in from time to time. I enjoy the interaction and the vibe on this forum.
I have to say that, in my experience it is the mic that is the more important component of the two. I have a decent selection of high quality preamps and am always interested to see which of them will create the best interaction with the chosen mic for a particular source, but the choice of mic is always the primary decision to make.
I think of the number of times that I have been struggling with the sound I was getting, whether on a vocal, an acoustic guitar, a violin, a horn, until I changed to a different mic and suddenly--"Ah, there it is! There's what I was looking for."
At that point in the process I will often experiment with different preamps just to get a sense of whether there is a color or a shade that can be added that will enhance the sound further but it seems almost always to be that moment when I get the "right" mic that makes me think I have a chance to capture something exceptional.
I certainly don't want to understate the importance of excellent preamps, as I have had some great moments of suddenly hearing the sound of a specific pre and being blown away by it, but I think I have to go with the first link in the chain--the microphone--and its interaction with the instrument or the voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by 79sg on Mar 24, 2016 13:40:48 GMT -6
My experience has been that it's very rare someone will have a great mic and a modest / lower quality preamp or vice versa. Why bother? As a guitar player (primary instrument) I've heard the same comparison for decades on which is more important, the guitar or the amp? How many great guitars are plugged into crappy amps? How many use crappy guitars into great amps? Saying this, if given the choice of a great mic or a great pre, I'll take the mic. It's a vicious cycle with too many variables.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 24, 2016 14:07:14 GMT -6
Hey gang--I'm new here but have been checking in from time to time. I enjoy the interaction and the vibe on this forum.
I have to say that, in my experience it is the mic that is the more important component of the two. I have a decent selection of high quality preamps and am always interested to see which of them will create the best interaction with the chosen mic for a particular source, but the choice of mic is always the primary decision to make.
I think of the number of times that I have been struggling with the sound I was getting, whether on a vocal, an acoustic guitar, a violin, a horn, until I changed to a different mic and suddenly--"Ah, there it is! There's what I was looking for."
At that point in the process I will often experiment with different preamps just to get a sense of whether there is a color or a shade that can be added that will enhance the sound further but it seems almost always to be that moment when I get the "right" mic that makes me think I have a chance to capture something exceptional.
I certainly don't want to understate the importance of excellent preamps, as I have had some great moments of suddenly hearing the sound of a specific pre and being blown away by it, but I think I have to go with the first link in the chain--the microphone--and its interaction with the instrument or the voice. Welcome! |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957
|
Post by ericn on Mar 24, 2016 14:20:15 GMT -6
Hey gang--I'm new here but have been checking in from time to time. I enjoy the interaction and the vibe on this forum.
I have to say that, in my experience it is the mic that is the more important component of the two. I have a decent selection of high quality preamps and am always interested to see which of them will create the best interaction with the chosen mic for a particular source, but the choice of mic is always the primary decision to make.
I think of the number of times that I have been struggling with the sound I was getting, whether on a vocal, an acoustic guitar, a violin, a horn, until I changed to a different mic and suddenly--"Ah, there it is! There's what I was looking for."
At that point in the process I will often experiment with different preamps just to get a sense of whether there is a color or a shade that can be added that will enhance the sound further but it seems almost always to be that moment when I get the "right" mic that makes me think I have a chance to capture something exceptional.
I certainly don't want to understate the importance of excellent preamps, as I have had some great moments of suddenly hearing the sound of a specific pre and being blown away by it, but I think I have to go with the first link in the chain--the microphone--and its interaction with the instrument or the voice. Welcome to the party |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 24, 2016 14:23:55 GMT -6
this is like Groundhog Day. The answer is always....FOR WHAT? -edit- This is why anyone who says they have "the answer" to that question as one or the other is patently wrong. Like the person who has "the best mic" for a project studio. Or the "right compressor". By definition, a project studio is that-it's for recording whatever small microcosm of the artistic world works there. The thing is every pro I have ever had this discussion says mic choice is his top priority, not cost choice! Also most pros have always been more willing to try a different pre on the fly, because they no it won't screw up what their mic is giving them. The mic pre fashion, is a Gearslutz/ Mix Mag / gear pimp phenomenon . If people knew how many great sounding records were the result of most of the tracks being cut with the pres on the board! So, there's a bit I think needs to be clarified here in what I was saying--shitty mic pres shouldn't happen. You're talking about the differences between professional mic preamps. Be it the "shitty" SSL preamps or someone's travelling Hardy rack. Yes--the SPECIFIC mic always makes more difference than the preamp. I suppose you can make that "it's always the mic"--but, it ignores WHY people really experience more improvement with preamps given certain sources. Drums are actually the best example, IME--because they're so transient heavy and clipping and rounding or sizzling it a certain way IS ciritical--and the "right mic" are dynamics for everything but the overheads and hat if you're being all Steely Dan about it. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957
|
Post by ericn on Mar 24, 2016 14:35:01 GMT -6
The thing is every pro I have ever had this discussion says mic choice is his top priority, not cost choice! Also most pros have always been more willing to try a different pre on the fly, because they no it won't screw up what their mic is giving them. The mic pre fashion, is a Gearslutz/ Mix Mag / gear pimp phenomenon . If people knew how many great sounding records were the result of most of the tracks being cut with the pres on the board! So, there's a bit I think needs to be clarified here in what I was saying--shitty mic pres shouldn't happen. You're talking about the differences between professional mic preamps. Be it the "shitty" SSL preamps or someone's travelling Hardy rack. Yes--the SPECIFIC mic always makes more difference than the preamp. I suppose you can make that "it's always the mic"--but, it ignores WHY people really experience more improvement with preamps given certain sources. Drums are actually the best example, IME--because they're so transient heavy and clipping and rounding or sizzling it a certain way IS ciritical--and the "right mic" are dynamics for everything but the overheads and hat if you're being all Steely Dan about it. The thing is when you look at all the pre amp on a chip out there it's really hard to find a shitty pre , not like the days of say teac M3 ! |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Mar 24, 2016 15:05:29 GMT -6
The thing is every pro I have ever had this discussion says mic choice is his top priority, not cost choice! Also most pros have always been more willing to try a different pre on the fly, because they no it won't screw up what their mic is giving them. The mic pre fashion, is a Gearslutz/ Mix Mag / gear pimp phenomenon . If people knew how many great sounding records were the result of most of the tracks being cut with the pres on the board! So, there's a bit I think needs to be clarified here in what I was saying--shitty mic pres shouldn't happen. You're talking about the differences between professional mic preamps. Be it the "shitty" SSL preamps or someone's travelling Hardy rack. Yes--the SPECIFIC mic always makes more difference than the preamp. I suppose you can make that "it's always the mic"--but, it ignores WHY people really experience more improvement with preamps given certain sources. Drums are actually the best example, IME--because they're so transient heavy and clipping and rounding or sizzling it a certain way IS ciritical-- and the "right mic" are dynamics for everything but the overheads and hat if you're being all Steely Dan about it. Have you tried a KM84 through a CAPI VP28 on a snare? That's a situation where a condenser not only sounds "right" but in most cases sounds killer! |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Mar 24, 2016 15:37:02 GMT -6
As long as you know your room, mics, and the sonic character of the instrument, that's when pre's really become a critical tool for shaping your recordings. While that is stating the obvious for us audio guys plenty of people I know in the recording business seem to not be that bothered by what preamps get used.
Unless you can DIY a many of the highly revered pre's are simply out of the question due to cost so most smaller studios are unlikely to have a rack of Neve 1073's/1084's/1081's etc.
It's more common to find most using the existing pre's in their interface which was the case in the studio I work in now up until two years ago. While he had a Digi 002 he was using there's still plenty of RME's, UA's Presonus in many current studios. These are not very good 'transient shapers' for recording drums etc.
My studio partner who is a well seasoned musician and producer was never particularly savvy when it came to the nuances of different mic pre's.
A few years ago he could have barely noticed the difference between one micpre or another.
For instance whether he was listening to a Millenia or a V72 would have just elicited... "I dunno. Sounds alright to me"
In fact many of his recordings were done using the pre's in his Digi 002 with with a Rode NT2000 mic a SM58 and SM57.
This didn't stop him recording and I glad it didn't because some great performances were captured regardless.
Here's an example from 2012. "Crap" Digi 002 pre's, basic non-vintage mics, all recorded live in the control room that would have had me telling him... "You can't record like this!"
Since we went into partnership about 2 1/2 years ago he has learnt the 'language' so to speak.
He can now hear the thicker low-mids of a Neve, or the mid punch of an API, or pick the clean transient detail of a mandolin through a Millenia.
As far as which is more important/versatile it depends on the mic and the pre.
If the pre also has great EQ (1081 etc) then that will make it more useful than say a Neve with no EQ.
API's on kick, snare, electric guitars for their mid punch and presence.
Neve's on toms, bass, Vox for some thickening.
Clean pre's (Millenia, Seventh Circle Audio C84's) on overhead, hats, acoustics (not always) for transient detail.
John Hardy (Seventh Circle Audio J99) for a blend of Millenia/Neve in the one pre.
Older vintage tube/transformer pre's for slowing/smoothing/thickening.
If I had the choice of only one mic to record everything it would be a Neumann KM84 as I think there's almost nothing the KM84 can't record well. We have 4 KM84's and they get used constantly.
As for a pre probably a Neve 1081 but I would happily settle for a Heritage Audio 8173 which I own a pair of anyway as 1081's are about two to three times the price of a 8173.
IMO a KM84 through a 1081 would provide a large enough sonic palate to record every instrument and vocal on an album without sounding at all like anything was compromised.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Mar 24, 2016 16:45:56 GMT -6
As long as you know your room, mics, and the sonic character of the instrument, that's when pre's really become a critical tool for shaping your recordings. While that is stating the obvious for us audio guys plenty of people I know in the recording business seem to not be that bothered by what preamps get used. Unless you can DIY a many of the highly revered pre's are simply out of the question due to cost so most smaller studios are unlikely to have a rack of Neve 1073's/1084's/1081's etc. It more common to find most using the existing pre's in their interface which was the case in the studio I work in now up until two years ago. My studio partner who is a well seasoned musician and producer was never particularly savvy when it came to the nuances of different mic pre's. A few years ago he could have barely noticed the difference between one micpre or another. For instance whether he was listening to a Millenia or a V72 would have just elicited... "I dunno. Sounds alright to me" In fact many of his recordings were done using the pre's in his Digi 002 with with a Rode NT2000 mic a SM58 and SM57. This didn't stop him recording and I glad it didn't because some great performances were captured regardless. Here's an example from 2012. "Crap" Digi 002 pre's, basic non-vintage mics, all recorded live in the control room that would have had me telling him... "You can't record like this!" Since we went into partnership about 2 1/2 years ago he has learnt the 'language' so to speak. He can now hear the thicker low-mids of a Neve, or the mid punch of an API, or pick the clean transient detail of a mandolin through a Millenia. As far as which is more important/versatile it depends on the mic and the pre. If the pre also has great EQ (1081 etc) then that will make it more useful than say a Neve with no EQ. API's on kick, snare, electric guitars for their mid punch and presence. Neve's on toms, bass, Vox for some thickening. Clean pre's (Millenia, Seventh Circle Audio C84's) on overhead, hats, acoustics (not always) for transient detail. John Hardy (Seventh Circle Audio J99) for a blend of Millenia/Neve in the one pre. Older vintage tube/transformer pre's for slowing/smoothing/thickening. If I had the choice of only one mic to record everything it would be a Neumann KM84 as I think there's almost nothing the KM84 can't record well. We have 4 KM84's and they get used constantly. As for a pre probably a Neve 1081 but I would happily settle for a Heritage Audio 8173 which I own a pair of anyway as 1081's are about two to three times the price of a 8173. IMO a KM84 through a 1081 would provide a large enough sonic palate to record every instrument and vocal on an album without sounding at all like anything was compromised. Live performance.... nothing beats it... sounds great. cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Mar 24, 2016 18:06:07 GMT -6
Hey gang--I'm new here but have been checking in from time to time. I enjoy the interaction and the vibe on this forum. Hi! I like your font. Nice for tired old eyes.
As a long time mic preamp builder since 1981, they do make a difference.
If you consider that all of your old classic, worshipped records were recorded with the console mic preamps, the mic is more important than the preamp unless it's busted.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957
|
Post by ericn on Mar 24, 2016 18:44:27 GMT -6
Hey gang--I'm new here but have been checking in from time to time. I enjoy the interaction and the vibe on this forum. Hi! I like your font. Nice for tired old eyes.
As a long time mic preamp builder since 1981, they do make a difference.
If you consider that all of your old classic, worshipped records were recorded with the console mic preamps, the mic is more important than the preamp unless it's busted.
Now if you wanted to sell more rather than build them you wouldn't say that Jim! Maybe you need to hire me to be VP sales ! |
|
