Post about varying Pre's

[vvv]

So at the g-slutz and elsewhere I have been reading that some recordists don't see the value in having numerous pre's. Some even rail about it, "marketing rip-off", etc.

The argument is often that so many great albums were recorded on desks ...

If I hadda SSL or API desk or something, even a Ghost or PM mebbe, it would be a ball to make records with.

I don't have the $, or the space ...

So I find colour and flava thru pre's.

And I agree, the player, the instrument, the mic are all prob'ly more/as important; I vary them as much as I can along with outboard and plugs.

But I do see value in different pre's, from Mackie to ART to Studio Projects to Bellari to Altec to Meek to Presonus to UA to Focusrite ...

Do all y'all?

[Randyman...]

Have you seen SOS's recent preamp shootout? They used a MIDI controlled acoustic piano as the repeatable sound source, and went though a bunch of preamps on 4 different mics. It was pretty revealing. I couldn't hear much difference between them - but the preamps were all run in their linear range.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/a ... smedia.htm

http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showf ... =1#1009249


General consensus (and a general consensus about amplifiers in general): Amps designed to be "flat" that are operated in their linear range tend to have very similar characteristics. Of course, one can purposely induce distortions and non-linearities in the chain (colored transformers, overdriven amp stage, etc), and this can open up tons of tonal options.

But the overwhelming results from the SOS shootout pretty much prove the difference in preamps operated in their linear range is VERY small - especially when you consider the effect a Mic or Mic Placement has in comparison (at least on a Piano).

That said - I like to have a range of preamps to play with. If for nothing else than to give me something to tinker with beyond plugging in a cable and adjusting the gain to an acceptable level. The API clones with an Output Pad allow me to saturate in the analog domain if desired. A Grace isn't going to give you the same results - but again this is OUTSIDE the linear range I'm talking about - and that's where things can get fun...

[digitaldrummer]

I went 500 series so that I could easily mix and match. Today I feel like I do have a good section of colors. After experimentation I have found pres that work better on specific drums, others that sound better on guitars, bass or vocals, etc. I certainly do not regret having many different pres. Then you figure out which mics work best with each pre and mixes just get easier.

Mike

[jgimbel]

While I do understand that if you line up a bunch of pre's it might be difficult to tell which is which, maybe even tell them apart, I do think there a certain practical applications/situations, even certain genres and/or specific written instrument's parts that the differences really pop out.

When I first got my BAE 1073MPF I was about to start recording drums for the first song of mine (not a client's song) that I've recorded in about two years, so I thought I'd try the preamp out here. The first thing I tried it on was kick. I usually use my handmade API 312 clones from Regular John Recording on kick and snare. I wasn't really a huge fan of the 1073MPF on kick, for this project anyway. It rounding things out a little more than I wanted, I needed a bit more cut through for the mix I was working on. Put the kick back through the API and then put the snare into the BAE, LOVED it. By far the happiest I've been with a snare sound in this style in a long time. It sounded thicker and weighted, but wasn't just a low end boost or cutting out high end. The APIs are a little "faster" to me, I have a little bit of a difficult time catching transients with some compressors when I need to cut back a touch of punch/crack. But the BAE was beautiful here. Everything else was the same, just a different preamp. I had a similar experience with close mics on a bright guitar chain (Strat bridge pickup into Deluxe Reverb), and really liked the bit of taming of harshness compared to it going through the API.

I can see how working with all of the same pre/a console would be great and I don't think it would bankrupt me, but I also definitely love having different preamps for different applications. I think it's the same with a lot of mics - there are ranges where a number will sound very similar of not identical, but when you get extended highs or low in there you really started to see the differences. In some situations the equipment choice would matter less if it's not really being "tested", but other times the situation really require one choice over another.

[DougK]

When thinking about modern music production, a large console is usually not in the picture when taking into consideration cost and above all, portability.
The form is following function.
But having owned and used quite a few different pre amps, I would say that
the differences when equated in the over all picture do have rather definitive
impact on the end result.
In the same way, having a nice desk lends itself to a
much different approach to the use of the other elements in the chain
(for me).

[vvv]

Of course, one can purposely induce distortions and non-linearities in the chain (colored transformers, overdriven amp stage, etc), and this can open up tons of tonal options.

I always figure ya gotta be able to use all of it; sometimes I use it properly, often times not.

But as much as I like my UA710 on amps with the tube engaged to varying degree, or not engaged, I love my ISA1, I guess because of the transformers.

By the time the mix is done, compression, EQ and effects added, etc., even I may not be able to tell what I recorded thru, but I sure know it as I record, and as I mix.

And something like a Summit vs. a Altec - that's a pretty distinguishable difference. Yes, I can make the Summit sound more Altec-like, but it's more difficult to go the other way.

[Jim Williams]

Colored and filtererd mic preamps can be useful once and a while, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I prefer fast and clear designs myself. Start large, then at mix time you can do all that stuff that messes it all up. Track with filters and colors and you may find incompatible sounding tracks to try and mix. Then your option is to turd polish or cut that track over again.

With clean and clear tracks I have all my options available. I like options.

[vvv]

Long-time reader, part-time fan, Mr. Williams. (I don't know what that means, either! )

I understand what you are saying, but want to analogize that to the old saw about "commit - don't leave it to the mix", etc.

Now mind, I'm not commercial, and primarily record myself and my associates (with just a touch of mixing for others, mebbe a cuppla times a year) and so re-recording is itself fun.

But I do like getting gnarly sounds and making them work, "turd-polishing" as it were, and for me that 2x/day correctness becomes a beautiful limitation.

Sometimes, I like to use only gnarly sounds (other than, perhaps, say, drums) and other times I want colour to highlight just one or two instruments.

But I do find changing up pre's helps me with that, from sparkly acoustic guitars to rude backing vocals.

[jgimbel]

+ 1 for vvv. I like to get the sounds I want for the mix as early in the process as possible. Limitations and committing to them are FANTASTIC for creativity too. If you have an idea for one sound you want to stick out, it's not a terrible thing to have to work to fit the other things to it. If you record a band who wants things totally clean and you recorded it super colored and the two of you never communicated, of course that would be an issue, but the first thing I do when a band comes in here is talk to the band about the sound they're looking for.

And from the musician side of things, hearing the snare through the BAE while I'm playing like I mentioned sure does help me feel it more, when I play and it just sounds how I want it to sound.

I understand the clean approach, and it's definitely safer and I might be more comfortable doing that if working with clients who weren't coming to me specifically because it's ME they're working with for my decision making. I've also done things differently when recording tracks that people will be adding more to later in their own studio. Like a number of people come to my space specifically to record drums, and while sometimes I use minimal micing, sometimes not, in these situations where I don't exactly know the final destination so to speak, I'll go way overboard for them - stereo overheads, maybe stereo rooms, close mics on everything, under snare mic, maybe kick in and kick out, as cleanly as possible and giving them as many options as possible, and maybe throwing in a trash mic or something to add color from the get-go if they want it, but without committing the whole project to it if I'm not sure it's what they want.

[kslight]

I definitely hear a difference in certain pre families, though it hardly feels like a night and day kind of thing, the way you might think with all the hype that surrounds various slutty pres/channel strips/consoles. In the same studio with a similar mic setup (different kit and drummer) I get great drum sounds to tape through the MCI desk...and lately I've been getting great drum sounds through a particularly slutty rack of 8 Chandler Abbey Road TGs and 8 APIs to digital. I've gotten great drum sounds through a Control 24, and when I do live shows I get great drum sounds through a Behringer MX8000 and (now) Urei 7510bs. IMHO its never been like "wow these drums wouldn't have sounded good if I hadn't used a rack of preamps that cost more than my car," optimistically maybe 5% to an already 95% recording. From a financial/investment point of view you'd definitely get a greater sonic benefit for your $ with a great drum kit, drummer, room....



I understand the clean approach, I can see where being safe would be desirable (classical, jazz, etc) however I tend to not be the guy that gets called for that stuff, I do mostly rock/experimental and I commit to sounds whenever I can. I want to hear the final product, and so does the performer...why would I want to record all clean and explain to them that it will "rock more" when I've mixed it? If a singer wants a certain effect for his/her song, we're going to dig out that effect...you know let's take the telephone mic and run it into my Pigtronix Keymaster into a Double Muff into an analog delay. Its going to be more real, and we'll know right away whether or not that sort of thing adds anything to the song. Then the artist involved and we are on exactly the same page so there's no guesswork like mixing at home. But I'm talking big commitments here...


Honestly I feel like if you care about getting good sounds to begin with (ha you'll have to commit to something, Jim!:P ) then whatever preamps you choose you should be able to work with them in the mix...I don't think you're going to say "Ah I wish I'd used the API instead of the MCI, this is unusable". The only way you're going to have to do some turd polishing is if you make a bad commitment and don't listen as you are recording.

[Jim Williams]

For general recording, good sounds come from the source, not the recording gear. I have done stuff like you suggest. Low fi police radio voice sounds I got off a crappy solid state Fender amp with "cheesy" overdrive.

Doing this since 1968 I learned a couple of things. Start large, then widdle it down. Fill every hole, then pull 1/2 back at mixtime. Committing to a colored sound is unpredictable as no one really knows what the tracks will sound like in the end. At mix time, all those colored pieces are still available to use, if you choose to. Re-amping tracks through colored mic pre's is easy to do if you want to. If you consider those tracks as coming back like "live to two track" you understand that it's no different except the tracks are already stored. You can do anything with a clear track just as you can with a live one. Colored options are limited at that point. I like options.

[Gregg Juke]

I can see, and agree, with both points of view. And I'm definitely (generally) more of a "options" guy than a "commit" guy, although with electronic music and other projects that I've been working on, I've been learning the joys of immediate commitment with abandon.

So I guess what I've learned is it can work either way. But, there is definitely something to be said for "playing into the sound;" huge for guitarists, but works for vocalists and drummers too.

GJ

[dfuruta]

Can't one consciously commit to a reasonably natural, "uncolored" sound too? Not everything needs a fuzz box on it.

[KennyLusk]

So at the g-slutz and elsewhere I have been reading that some recordists don't see the value in having numerous pre's. Some even rail about it, "marketing rip-off", etc...

That's GS though.

They're all so whacko over there.

[Bro Shark]

Workflow. My band recently did a one-day session in a SSL-based room. We ran everything through the SSL and it just worked, so we didn't belabor the point of what pre to use on what source. I guess if there had been problems with a particular channel we might have tried a different pre (there were tons available) but the SSL was working so we just kept on going. Keeping the vibe and sense of motion was the deciding factor, and the session was a fucking blast because of it.