RecPit

Posted: **July 7th, 2017, 1:38 pm**

Since I had some down time the other day, I decided to test a few preamps in my place just to confirm what I already believe is true.

My thoughts for the last ten years or so have been that the different mic preamp thing has been really blown out of proportion.
So that being said.
I played a guitar part, 1 clean, & one dirty into a di box. and printed that to my Radar.
Then using a REAMP box, I first ran the clean part into a brown Fender Deluxe, and then after that, I dirtied up the amp, and ran the slightly distorted performance thru the REAMP also.

I then wired in these preamps (1 at a time) that I have available in my place. Matched the gain, and printed the results.
Preamp choices were.

1 - VTC Console preamps
2 - Daking 52270 (NO EQ)
3 - Neve 1073 DPA
4 - API 3124
5 - Manley VoxBox
6 - Fearn VT-2
7 - UA 2108
8 - Helios Type 69
9 - Langevin (Manley) Dual vocal channel
10 - Shure FP-42 (4 channel Mixer preamp)

I don't think I have the time or energy to post everything, nor do I know how, but I admit there were differences, albeit very slight. Nothing that couldn't be addressed with just a slight bit of EQ.
It's amazing how little difference there really was.
So this confirms it for me,
I believe using one preamp, whatever one suits your needs, and use that for everything.
Changing the mic, it's position, the instrument, and or amp would make
a MUCH bigger difference in sound, then changing any of the preamps!

So that's my story, and I'm sticking to it...

PS...
I did the same type of thing with drums, using three mics, kick, snare, and overhead, although the same part was performed, it was obviously different takes.
I have come to the same conclusion here too.

Go Figure
PO

Posted: **July 8th, 2017, 4:09 pm**

Nobtwiddler wrote: ↑July 7th, 2017, 1:38 pm
I believe using one preamp, whatever one suits your needs, and use that for everything.
Changing the mic, it's position, the instrument, and or amp would make
a MUCH bigger difference in sound, then changing any of the preamps!

Indeed.

In other news, the sky is blue, and water is wet.

Cheers,
Tim

Posted: **July 9th, 2017, 1:39 am**

EXACTLY !

Posted: **July 9th, 2017, 2:39 am**

The same preamps and mikes are the best sounding "glue" there is. The best sounding preamp and mike soloed are rarely the best sounding in a mix.

Posted: **July 9th, 2017, 4:08 am**

Well I do find that preamps sound different and that, given the choice, I would choose a particular preamp model over another for sonic reasons.

Using different preamps for different things? No - except I must admit I have a really cheap preamp that messes up DI electric bass in a nice way. But that's an effect, not preamplification. And I avoid doing DI.

I would also say that the differences I detect, or at least think I do, are not differences I would spot in A/B testing. Much like how I have to listen to an album a few times before I really get it, after weeks or longer of use, I find myself recognizing a pattern in the sound coming out. Either I like it or I don't - it's definitely not instrument-dependent (except in the case above).

Posted: **July 9th, 2017, 3:10 pm**

Funny enough, I do this kinda comparison thing every few years for some reason?
But no matter when I did it, I always come to the same conclusion, which is: (at least for me)

- One mic pre is basically all ya really ever need

&

- Although there are differences in pre amps, they are minimal enough not to make any real significance in a recording.
(As long as you are using a quality preamp to being with!)

I found that with a touch of EQ, I could pretty much get them all to sound very, very, close when soloed. And in a track it wouldn't make a difference at all.

Time for a beer....

Posted: **July 15th, 2017, 4:02 pm**

I realized during my journey that some of the "cheaper" pres were not bad if you just used them for special duties. The GAP PRE-73 for instance was way too thick for vocals but did a great job on bass when loaded from a SansAmp DI. Other than that - good pres are good pres.

Posted: **July 16th, 2017, 4:01 am**

Knastratt wrote: ↑July 15th, 2017, 4:02 pm I realized during my journey that some of the "cheaper" pres were not bad if you just used them for special duties. The GAP PRE-73 for instance was way too thick for vocals but did a great job on bass when loaded from a SansAmp DI. Other than that - good pres are good pres.

Uh oh...a week in and it's already turning into gearslutz

I noticed the same though. Very woolly, which can be okay on bass. Interesting that we both find bass an occasional exception to the "one good preamp for everything" rule, if you tend to that.

I will agree with Bob that it's one of the best forms of glue there is. I don't know about you, but I specifically stick to one preamp (if I can) just for that...which I think inherently means that different preamps do different things.

It depends on what you're going for I guess. I've always erred on the side of "beautiful wall of sound" over "separation" (frequency carving, different pres to accentuate different things, etc).

In the process of actually (attempting) to make a record, of course, it's the last thing on my mind.

Posted: **July 17th, 2017, 9:55 am**

I have no use for different pres. I just was able to pick some up and gather intelligence from them. And since my fundings never were indefinite I had to make use to what I got. So a few stuck around.

What I settled with were 16 D-pres from Steinberg MR816 and two AMEK CIB via Lucid A/D for vocal duties. Felt like a low high-end rig. At least it wouldn't have stopped me from tracking with high fidelity.

Posted: **July 17th, 2017, 11:48 am**

Simply put, that's the deal, not to let the gear get in the way of making music!

But what really amazed me, is how LITTLE difference there was between the all preamps I tested.
And it's really quite funny that there are 100's of Mic pre's in the market right now, with new models available weekly...
Lot's of hype, and apparently, lot's of sales!

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 1:51 pm**

What coil material in the tweeters are best suited for dubstep anecdotal Icelandic polka?

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 1:55 pm**

Knastratt wrote: ↑July 18th, 2017, 1:51 pm What coil material in the tweeters are best suited for dubstep anecdotal Icelandic polka?

Cod.

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 4:50 pm**

There are 3 kinds. Sucks, Works and Excels. I know records made on a Soundblaster 16 bit that still captures me. And, no - my middle name is not Ethan. Hope I didn't Goodwin the thread. :-)

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 9:05 pm**

Knastratt wrote: ↑July 18th, 2017, 4:50 pm There are 3 kinds. Sucks, Works and Excels. I know records made on a Soundblaster 16 bit that still captures me. And, no - my middle name is not Ethan. Hope I didn't Goodwin the thread. :-)

I'm a bit left out on what Goodwin-ing is, but sometimes I feel like I could Goodwin a whole forum.

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 9:20 pm**

Go search the Womb for Eth... HEY, wait!

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 10:13 pm**

Ethan started his own forum at one stage. I'm pretty sure it didn't take off.

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 11:10 pm**

Too many cat pictures?

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 11:24 pm**

Too much ethanol!

Actually, I just checked, and it's still going. I'm sure that he will rejoice in the demise of The Womb. Another reason to keep The Womb alive..

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 11:33 pm**

Yeah, I just looked. There was a soundblaster thread on the very first page

Posted: **July 18th, 2017, 11:36 pm**

I actually kinda liked the vid he did on a song where he played all instruments. And his cello contrib in the CaPe was NBAA. I'm also guilty of spotting an EnVoice Mindprint in a mic pre shoot-out. Not knowing there was one present, that is. I owned one (two) and just hated it (them) and that stuck*. Meaning I have a certain standard when it comes to Soundblaster soundcards via consumer DJ mixers. Whatever...

* They were the mic pre variety of moslem country mid range aluminium minaret midrange horns - don't quote me on it...

Posted: **July 19th, 2017, 12:07 am**

Gronk wrote: ↑July 18th, 2017, 11:24 pmAnother reason to keep The Womb alive..

If it matters, I plan on keeping this place open for at least a year to see if it's sustainable. A pretty small user base so far, especially since MM&Co didn't do a temporary redirect or anything. Maybe he didn't appreciate me stealing his smilies?

I'll get a collaboration thread/forum(?) up pretty soon as well. I'm thinking we need a theme song...even if it's in a minor key

Posted: **July 19th, 2017, 5:08 am**

Code: Select all

Knastratt wrote: ↑July 18th, 2017, 4:50 pm There are 3 kinds. Sucks, Works and Excels.

This is a huge pearl of wisdom, at least for me personally.

For the longest while I treated the gear curve as a doubly asymptotic
"S" curve. Ya have to spend a certain amount not to suck and then for a while money equals some kind of linear progress and then you get over the knee of the curve and have to spend quadratic money for linear improvement.

This was wrong wrong wrong! And I think you have the right of it here. It's really a step function innit?

I respect Weedy greatly for dropping this wisdom on the community.

Had I to do it all over again I would have bought a Daking 4, a few M-88's and a few 201's and then just done my thing.

I could have done something with all that cash, like maybe bought a share of Berkshire Hathaway or some shit :)

-mous

Posted: **July 20th, 2017, 6:50 am**

Nobtwiddler wrote: ↑July 7th, 2017, 1:38 pm Since I had some down time the other day, I decided to test a few preamps in my place just to confirm what I already believe is true.

My thoughts for the last ten years or so have been that the different mic preamp thing has been really blown out of proportion.
So that being said.
I played a guitar part, 1 clean, & one dirty into a di box. and printed that to my Radar.
Then using a REAMP box, I first ran the clean part into a brown Fender Deluxe, and then after that, I dirtied up the amp, and ran the slightly distorted performance thru the REAMP also.

I then wired in these preamps (1 at a time) that I have available in my place. Matched the gain, and printed the results.
Preamp choices were.

1 - VTC Console preamps
2 - Daking 52270 (NO EQ)
3 - Neve 1073 DPA
4 - API 3124
5 - Manley VoxBox
6 - Fearn VT-2
7 - UA 2108
8 - Helios Type 69
9 - Langevin (Manley) Dual vocal channel
10 - Shure FP-42 (4 channel Mixer preamp)

I don't think I have the time or energy to post everything, nor do I know how, but I admit there were differences, albeit very slight. Nothing that couldn't be addressed with just a slight bit of EQ.
It's amazing how little difference there really was.
So this confirms it for me,
I believe using one preamp, whatever one suits your needs, and use that for everything.
Changing the mic, it's position, the instrument, and or amp would make
a MUCH bigger difference in sound, then changing any of the preamps!

So that's my story, and I'm sticking to it...

PS...
I did the same type of thing with drums, using three mics, kick, snare, and overhead, although the same part was performed, it was obviously different takes.
I have come to the same conclusion here too.

Go Figure
PO

Yep, unless one of the pre's is REALLY lousy....

Posted: **July 20th, 2017, 6:54 am**

upstairs wrote: ↑July 9th, 2017, 4:08 am Well I do find that preamps sound different and that, given the choice, I would choose a particular preamp model over another for sonic reasons.

Using different preamps for different things? No - except I must admit I have a really cheap preamp that messes up DI electric bass in a nice way. But that's an effect, not preamplification. And I avoid doing DI.

I would also say that the differences I detect, or at least think I do, are not differences I would spot in A/B testing. Much like how I have to listen to an album a few times before I really get it, after weeks or longer of use, I find myself recognizing a pattern in the sound coming out. Either I like it or I don't - it's definitely not instrument-dependent (except in the case above).

I don't believe in A/B testing for stuff like this. It's for Purple People and audiophooles.

Posted: **July 20th, 2017, 6:57 am**

Nobtwiddler wrote: ↑July 17th, 2017, 11:48 am Simply put, that's the deal, not to let the gear get in the way of making music!

As opposed to not letting making music interfere with endleswsly playing with gear.....

Posted: **July 21st, 2017, 5:48 pm**

John Eppstein wrote: ↑July 20th, 2017, 6:57 amAs opposed to not letting making music interfere with endleswsly playing with gear.....

Playing with gear is too hard though. You have to get up and plug stuff in. Nightmare! I'd rather sit in my desk chair, input some "note data", and mess around with plugins in an attempt to make it not sound like what it is!

Posted: **July 23rd, 2017, 4:53 pm**

"As opposed to not letting making music interfere with endleswsly playing with gear....."

Touche'

Posted: **July 25th, 2017, 8:14 pm**

mousdrvr wrote: ↑July 19th, 2017, 5:08 am
Code: Select all
Knastratt wrote: ↑July 18th, 2017, 4:50 pm There are 3 kinds. Sucks, Works and Excels.
This is a huge pearl of wisdom, at least for me personally.

For the longest while I treated the gear curve as a doubly asymptotic
"S" curve. Ya have to spend a certain amount not to suck and then for a while money equals some kind of linear progress and then you get over the knee of the curve and have to spend quadratic money for linear improvement.

This was wrong wrong wrong! And I think you have the right of it here. It's really a step function innit?

I respect Weedy greatly for dropping this wisdom on the community.

Had I to do it all over again I would have bought a Daking 4, a few M-88's and a few 201's and then just done my thing.

I could have done something with all that cash, like maybe bought a share of Berkshire Hathaway or some shit :)

-mous

There's a side benefit to thinking about gear like this. Too often, gear is a known quantity, in the sense that everyone is familiar with how to talk about it. Anyone on any level can grab a catalog or go to reverb.com and start "educating" themselves about gear and pine for stuff they can't have while comparing the manufacturers marketing blurbs.

When keeping things limited to "sucks, works or excels", the conversation doesn't ever get the opportunity to go off the rails. Many will resist this because they mistake gear-talk as discussion about music.

When I first got my Daking pre, I though it'd be some sonic epiphany. It's wholly unremarkable. It just doesn't get in the way, and I never use anything else unless I need more inputs, which is very rare. One less decision to make. I think a lot of people expecting "magic" out of expensive pres are the same ones who say that they're not worth the money. As far as I can tell, they are. It's just not like upgrading a graphics card for your PC - you still have to do the work.

Posted: **July 26th, 2017, 2:46 am**

dr. casino wrote: ↑July 25th, 2017, 8:14 pm One less decision to make.

Oh God yes!

Decisions burn hella glucose. Serious serious cognitive load. For some reason, this fact has been coming up for me a lot lately.

I think we often and correctly describe being "decisive" as a good thing, but I'm beginning to wonder if the usage isn't actually a bit ironic. Like you think you "decided" but really what happened is some choice eventually became the last one standing and then things got real clear.

I know Steely Dan is something of a dangerous topic but the guitar solo for "Peg" comes to mind. In the making of vid for Aja, the boys are sitting at the desk and dropping in the various attempts which the cream of the LA studio crowd had made at it over the weeks. When they dropped in "the" track, they both just nodded and shrugged. It wasn't really a decision.

It used to be if I had to do a serious track for someone, I'd grind at it pretty hard. I'd use the comp functions on the DAW, punch small things, all that shit. Now I don't. I give myself a few days, if I can, and each time I fire up the rig to work at it. I get warm first and then make 3 attempts. If it doesn't give me feels I drop it. Might continue to practice it but I don't record until next time. The notion here was that if I'm sitting there trying to decide between N takes they probably all suck to close to the same degree.

Looking back on my life everything that actually felt like a decision sucked. Every "good decision" I've ever made, in hindsight, feels more like having accepted something as inevitable and true, whether I was jumping out of the way of the train or hoping on it.

Removing decisions from the whole gear thing is righteous.

-mous

Posted: **July 26th, 2017, 5:13 pm**

dr. casino wrote: ↑July 25th, 2017, 8:14 pmWhen I first got my Daking pre, I though it'd be some sonic epiphany. It's wholly unremarkable. It just doesn't get in the way, and I never use anything else unless I need more inputs, which is very rare. One less decision to make. I think a lot of people expecting "magic" out of expensive pres are the same ones who say that they're not worth the money. As far as I can tell, they are. It's just not like upgrading a graphics card for your PC - you still have to do the work.

That's the same way I feel about tape. A well maintained pro machine sounds, itself, quite boring really. So when people go in looking for exciting harmonic distortion or whatever and don't find it, they determine it's a waste of time. In fact I find most digital to sound hyped, if anything. That's my limited experience of course.

RecPit

Get er done !

Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !

Re: Get er done !