|
Post by Ward on Mar 26, 2016 22:14:41 GMT -6
I think it's mic first. Give me the wrong mic, no preamp can fix it. AMEN! This is why so much depends on the capsule too. In photography, it's all about the lens. Dodgy lens on a great camera will lead to lesser results than a great lens on a marginal camera. Capsule is equivalent to lens.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 26, 2016 22:17:18 GMT -6
The Samar is without a doubt, the most extraordinary ribbon microphone I've ever heard... and I own one!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2016 0:54:20 GMT -6
Interesting, I did read his blog, I'll send him another email letting him know about the place. Not sure, I don't have the experience with expensive outboard preamps to say they make a difference, I have however made lots of great sounding stuff with Mackie preamps that I'm very proud of. What I do like about the Zen preamps is that they're digitally controlled, so I can recall tracking settings with the click of the button and it's exactly how I left it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 28, 2016 10:45:19 GMT -6
So if your monitoring can't translate well enough to give you a good basis to judge the choice/placement of you your super-duper-mic running into your mega-awesome-preamp, then what good is having a great mic or preamp?
I still say good monitoring is key. It'll allow you to place an SM57 into a mackie preamp that sounds better for the tracks than a U47 into a 1084 that is placed wrong.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 28, 2016 10:56:41 GMT -6
Yeah, all those things make a difference. Getting better converters makes a huge difference, you start making mic moves 1/2 the size of what you did with lesser converters because you can hear it. Though I gotta say, 20 years ago when my rig was a 1604 and 2 blackface adats monitored with an RA-100 and Monitor Ones, I regularly tracked to adats at a room with a Neve full of 33114 and 3315 modules, and there was a highly apparent difference in the sound of the Mackie versus the Neve. If you got used to the sound of one, a switch to the other would sound broken until your ears adjusted.
Bob could comment on how they made all those great sounding records with VoT and 604's driven with Mac amps at earsplitting volume in tiny control rooms with little (modern) thought to sound design, tons of reflective surfaces, etc.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957
|
Post by ericn on Mar 28, 2016 11:42:22 GMT -6
Yeah, all those things make a difference. Getting better converters makes a huge difference, you start making mic moves 1/2 the size of what you did with lesser converters because you can hear it. Though I gotta say, 20 years ago when my rig was a 1604 and 2 blackface adats monitored with an RA-100 and Monitor Ones, I regularly tracked to adats at a room with a Neve full of 33114 and 3315 modules, and there was a highly apparent difference in the sound of the Mackie versus the Neve. If you got used to the sound of one, a switch to the other would sound broken until your ears adjusted. Bob could comment on how they made all those great sounding records with VoT and 604's driven with Mac amps at earsplitting volume in tiny control rooms with little (modern) thought to sound design, tons of reflective surfaces, etc. Simple in the grand old days they learned what the speakers did right and wrong and didn't change with fashion !
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 28, 2016 12:28:57 GMT -6
True, they wouldn't have the option to try different speakers all the time and be perpetually confused.
|
|
|
Post by bluenoise on Mar 28, 2016 22:24:36 GMT -6
IME it's always been an outside-in thing, being the outermost piece the most relevant. Like this: Musician - instrument - mic - preamp - convertion...
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 28, 2016 23:02:44 GMT -6
Sure. A nice late '50's Gibson can get borrowed and suddenly every other guitar tracked over the previous month sounds broken.....this has happened.....
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 28, 2016 23:03:37 GMT -6
A punk band with 100W SS Marshalls can be introduced to the Fender Champ.....
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Mar 29, 2016 11:00:36 GMT -6
I can't separate them.
It's like saying would you take the guitar or the strings.
The right mic works hand in hand with the right pre-amp.
If there is something I had to worry about less for me it would be the converters.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Mar 29, 2016 12:04:34 GMT -6
It's like saying would you take the guitar or the strings. I'll take crap strings on a great guitar.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Mar 29, 2016 12:37:11 GMT -6
Although mic first, a particular pre combined with a particular mic can nail a sound that couldn't be achieved with any other combination especially when comparing clean versus coloured pre's.
|
|
|
Post by Pueblo Audio on Mar 29, 2016 14:18:37 GMT -6
LOL!! Love it. I guess my post did come across a bit guru-ish. Maybe some anecdotes might bring this to earth... I have had the good fortune to apprentice or other wise "get skooled" by the professionals who help make the records we all own, collect, imitate and love. Peeps like Mikey of Motown/HannaBarbera, Beno of A&M studios, Bernie of BGM/Contemporary Records, and a kaleidoscope of others who themselves apprenticed under Greats who made the hits of the 40s & 50s. Recalliing my experience with this lineage of folks and facilities, never was a question asked like "Mic or Pre". It just was not part of the engineering problem-solving matrix. Not part of the philosophy. That is not to say they were overly philosophical, just trying to successfully ignite that spark in the audience. That spark is the goal whether you are aiming for a number one hit, trying to advance a student thru an audition process, or reach a joyful level of personal satisfaction with your own music hobby. It's the same. So I offer this alternative perspective not as a direct answer to this post. Indeed the direct answer is volumes and years of experience. But I offer it to nudge reader's thoughts towards a different standard. Not driven by consumerism (I have $600 bucks, how do I spend it?) but by craft (identify the weak link(s) of your system and correct it). There was a football analogy offered earlier. I suggest it is not fitting cuz it reflects a talent/ people matter. When speaking of gear we need a tech frame. What is more important in a formula one?: carb or tires? Fuel or fuselage? Not so easy to answer. Any one thing could prevent a winning run. There is no "most important". It must all achieve in concert. So I repeat: everything matters.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 29, 2016 15:12:39 GMT -6
I can't separate them. It's like saying would you take the guitar or the strings. The right mic works hand in hand with the right pre-amp. If there is something I had to worry about less for me it would be the converters. See--I would worry about the converters. Actually--I wouldn't, I'd run it at double rate so I didn't have to....but, technically, THAT is worry about the converters....just not worrying about spending buttloads of money on them. If we carry your guitar strings forward--I think that's totally true. except to prove what I'm saying. Strings ABSOLUTELY change the sound of a guitars and (even more) basses....but, there's no set of strings that makes a Precision sound like a Stingray. Like you've got a Precision, you want a Stingray sound--there are no strings you can buy, because strings are that last bit--it's a SHADE a given color--the guitar is the color. The MIC is the color--the preamp is but the shading. Do you want a deep red or a vibrant neon red....there's no preamp that makes blue into red. This is why I find it odd that JK keeps the same mic....and keeps switching preamps and compressors*. My voice+Gefell (or sm7) sounds give or take the same through a TubeMP as it does the LA610 or the Millenias or Great River. My voice+414 completely fucking different. Through any preamp. My voice though Chinese LDC (and there have been plenty through here)=third(through 50th) thing. *though for pop music vocals, compression is next in line for vocal tone after the mic--but STILL....your DAW's compressor does a perfectly solid job set properly to audition mics
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 29, 2016 16:06:59 GMT -6
I can't separate them. It's like saying would you take the guitar or the strings. The right mic works hand in hand with the right pre-amp. If there is something I had to worry about less for me it would be the converters. See--I would worry about the converters. Actually--I wouldn't, I'd run it at double rate so I didn't have to....but, technically, THAT is worry about the converters....just not worrying about spending buttloads of money on them. Still got that Burl?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 29, 2016 16:17:51 GMT -6
I wholeheartedly agree Pueblo, everything matters, but not equally, hence our dilemma. I think where many of us get stuck is from being undercapitalized. Once you get to where you have a truly high end mic, like an U-47, C-12 , Elam 251, a U87, (high end clones are fine), you can pretty much put them into anything and it will sound good.
But as we strive for a no compromise, ideal tone, we get into all the other components, and the preamp is next in line. I'd love to have a Heritage 1073, just to see if it's a better fit than my Dizengoff D4, ( which I love), but can't afford that. So, like many others, I chase my own tail, looking at different mics, hoping one is magical with my voice, but then, what if I did find the right mic, but didn't know it because it wasn't paired with the most complementary preamp?
So, it's an endless thing, until you find what you like. Then beware, that can change as your tastes evolve.
I think it takes some fairly big pockets to get it right. Get a high end mic you like, get a Heritage 1073, Great River, Chandler preamp, get a Burl or Dangerous Music converter, and you're getting there, with the probable exception of the room.
It took the loan of a $3,500 mic to get me in the ballpark of what I call a good tone on a mic. Maybe that's just me, but I'd be curious to hear from the other guys at what price point did all the equipment you have line up to get you satisfaction with your vocal sound.
In another post, I mentioned I'd read an article describing some new ways that have been developed of testing audio distortions, and despite opinions that may say otherwise, I'm convinced none of this is ever truly right without superb converters, like a Burl or Dangerous Music, or some of the other even higher priced brands.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 29, 2016 16:38:20 GMT -6
I asked a few producers of major league artists whose vocal sound I liked, what was involved with getting certain sounds I consider benchmarks, and every time, it involved a vintage mic. A U-47, C-12, U-67, so there it is. Can it be done with a clone, yes, cowboycoalminer's tracks are proof it's possible, but it takes more frustrating trial and error and a very good ear, and usually, some relatively expensive gear.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Mar 29, 2016 17:13:04 GMT -6
I would think the Neve 1073 is probably the most widely used high end vocal preamp on the planet when it comes to tracking vocals.
However I would pick a 1084 over a 1073 for its more versatile EQ. I typically prefer the 16khz shelving of my Heritage 8173 for some air boost when using condensers as 12khz tends to get harsher quicker than 16khz.
Out of AMS/Neve, BAE and Heritage I think Heritage offers the best value for money with zero compromises concerning sound or build quality.
A while ago I discovered a match made in heaven for recording one client's Gibson acoustic. An AEA R84 ribbon into a Neve 3115 with about 6db of 10khz shelving boost. I positioned the R84 horizontally about 12 inches above the body of the guitar angled down towards the bridge and across the sound hole (not pointing into it). Sound was massive!
Must try that one again!
|
|