Hemmick Reef
member
Joined: 29/02/04
Posts: 74
|
|
Has anybody noticed a significant difference after replacing stock budget preamps with
standalone high end preamps.
How much difference has it made to the overall
sound?....
..5%.....50% differnce in clarity, presence, fatness of
sound.....etc?
Edited by Hemmick Reef (06/11/09 08:58 AM)
|
4TrackMadman
new member
Joined: 30/10/02
Posts: 964
|
|
I subscribe to another forum and the guy that runs it posted some clips recorded from a
PreSonus audio interface and from a Vintech/Trident and other much more expensive signal
chains and the results were kinda mixed. Granted, this guy was recording distorted guitar
which has limited range but the end results were very mixed:
http://www.recordingreview.com/quiz/signal-chain.php
--------------------
www.descentintomadness.com
|
Hemmick Reef
member
Joined: 29/02/04
Posts: 74
|
|
Quote 4TrackMadman:
I subscribe
to another forum and the guy that runs it posted some clips recorded from a PreSonus audio
interface and from a Vintech/Trident and other much more expensive signal chains and the
results were kinda mixed. Granted, this guy was recording distorted guitar which has
limited range but the end results were very mixed:
http://www.recordingreview.com/quiz/signal-chain.php
Well, the differnce there is........nothing
to worry about when recording distorted guitar stacks - l'll stick with the cheaper pres
and save some money!
What about DI'd guitar, bass and vocals?
|
narcoman
active member
Joined: 14/08/01
Posts: 4776
|
|
decent pre-amps make a massive difference to every source. The thing is - you wouldn't
particularly notice it if
a) you didn't really know what to listen for....
which has a knock on effect to b)
b) it becomes more apparent the more tracks
you have.
If you've every wondered why "i cant get my mix to sound like a
finished record".... a small part of that is the preamps. And the mic's. And the room. And
the EQs. And the console. And the guys playing. And the guys writing. And the producer.
And the arrangement. And the guy recording..And the etc etc
Or look at it
another way - unless you're prepared to sort the LOT out, new preamps will make a subtle
but noticeable contribution. They won't "night and day" your sound.
oh -
and not all "decent" pre amps are "high priced".
|
James Perrett
Joined: 10/09/01
Posts: 6280
Loc: The wilds of Hampshire
|
|
It depends on how budget the budget preamps are. Really cheap preamps will be noisier than
expensive preamps and may not have a flat frequency response at high gains. If you are
starting from something like a Behringer ADA8000 then the differences are much smaller.
The other reason for using different preamps is to give a different flavour to the
sound - expensive preamps aren't always accurate as some people buy them for their quirks
rather than their engineering quality.
Cheers
James.
--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net
|
Hemmick Reef
member
Joined: 29/02/04
Posts: 74
|
|
I use a Steinberg MR816x - apparently it has pretty good preamps. Not sure what they are
like up against the 'big boys' though?
|
Korff
Joined: 20/10/06
Posts: 921
Loc: Cambridge, UK
|
|
Subtly inferior, probably, but nothing to lose sleep over.
The difference
between a crap DI and a good DI, though, is surprisingly large...
Cheers!
Chris
|
The Elf
active member
Joined: 14/08/01
Posts: 3109
Loc: Sheffield, UK
|
|
My first experience of tracking with ‘high-end’ pre’s, (after many years of Allen &
Heath in my youth!) initially made me think ‘I don’t know what the fuss is about’. But
when it came to the mix I remember bringing up the vocal track, adding a smudge of
compression and thinking ‘Ah! I get it!’ The vocal just ‘sat’ right there in the mix,
clear, confident and solid.
Now I have an ear for that difference in sound I
don’t know why I couldn’t hear it from the first.
For me the first mark of a
great pre is firstly about the ‘fade to black’. A good pre pulls every nuance of the sound
right up close to you, but when the sound drops away the contrast is profound. It’s like a
well-lit actor on a blackened stage – the backdrop provides the ‘contrast’ to draw your
attention to the performance.
Then it’s about the ‘solidity’ of the signal. A
voice fills its space top-to-bottom with usable sound; a bass sounds full, yet crisp. Or
shall we call it ‘presence’?
These two aspects are what I’m primarily looking
for in a pre. Then it’s about the indefinable ‘something’ that doubtless relates to
distortion brought about by the transformers, valves and other magic goodies they glue
into these boxes.
I hate words, such as ‘warmth’, ‘colour’ and the like.
Everyone has a different meaning for them. It makes my ears wilt when I read someone
convinced they need a valve pre for ‘warmth’, because the ‘warmth’ they crave probably has
little to do with valves. Blessedly, sound is a very subjective thing and we all have
different ideas of what sounds ‘big’ , ‘warm’, ‘coloured’ and ‘punchy’. The words have no
meaning beyond our own prejudices.
Hope any of that makes sense. The best pre
is the one that makes me smile. I have mine – what are yours? 
--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
|
The Elf
active member
Joined: 14/08/01
Posts: 3109
Loc: Sheffield, UK
|
|
Quote narcoman:
b) it becomes
more apparent the more tracks you have.
Yes, yes and triple YES! Nail hit squarely on the head! 
--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
|
Hemmick Reef
member
Joined: 29/02/04
Posts: 74
|
|
Quote The Elf:
A good pre pulls
every nuance of the sound right up close to you, but when the sound drops away the
contrast is profound.
Then it’s about the ‘solidity’ of the signal. A voice fills its
space top-to-bottom with usable sound; a bass sounds full, yet crisp. Or shall we call it
‘presence’?
This makes sense - what pres are
you using?
|
The Elf
active member
Joined: 14/08/01
Posts: 3109
Loc: Sheffield, UK
|
|
Quote Hemmick Reef:
Quote The Elf:
A good pre pulls
every nuance of the sound right up close to you, but when the sound drops away the
contrast is profound.
Then it’s about the ‘solidity’ of the signal. A voice fills
its space top-to-bottom with usable sound; a bass sounds full, yet crisp. Or shall we call
it ‘presence’?
This makes sense - what pres
are you using?
I use a few
different pre's in various other studios - one has a bank of 1073s that I love for
drums.
My own 'high end' pre's are a pair of SSL SuperAnalogue Channels and a
pair of Focusrite Liquid Channels. The SSLs are my 'squeaky clean/big sound' pre's and my
Liquid Channels are my 'everything else' pre's. Tracking DI bass through the SSLs is one
of my very favourite things - to see a bassist's face when he hears that bumper sound is
gratifying!
The LCs are amazingly good and stand up in emulation to not only
the 1073s I've compared them with, but also a recent comparison with an Avalon 737. I'm
not really that interested in comparisons to be honest, but it makes for an interesting
exercise and a level of confidence in my ears! When I'm using the LCs for a clean sound
(i.e. the SSLs are already busy) then I'll bypass the emulation and they give a full,
clean signal, but when I'm wanting to 'put a hat' on a sound I'll always dial in some
'Harmonics' knob. I often use a 1073/1176 combination. The rest of the time the LCs sit in
a digital loop to let me use them as a VST plug-in via Cubase's external effect
capability.
--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
|
steve355
Joined: 02/03/07
Posts: 485
Loc: Stevenage, Herts
|
|
I have 3 types of preamp - RME FF800 pres, an SCA T15, which is an IC preamp with a very
similar circuit to a DAV, Arsenal Audio, RNP etc, and an SCA N72, which is a clone of a
Neve circuit. So really that ranges from good to very good, to "hi-end".
I
rarely use the RME pres. The T15 pre just sounds "bigger" and more exciting. But the N72,
in comparison, sound waaaay better. It's difficult to explain. It's bigger, fuller,
smoother... almost "creamy" and "golden" (sounds b0ll0cks I know). Less "spiky" than the
T15.
When I occasionally switch my mic over from the N72 to the T15, the
immediate thought that hits me is "Oh no, put that other one back on".
That's
my experience anyway. I'm an amateur & a relative novice and the difference is clear
to me. I thought it was snake oil before, but it isn't.
|
EnlightenedHand
Joined: 18/01/08
Posts: 429
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI, United States
|
|
Quote Hemmick Reef:
Has anybody
noticed a significant difference after replacing stock budget preamps with standalone high
end preamps.
How much difference has it made to the overall sound?....
..5%.....50% differnce in clarity, presence, fatness of sound.....etc?
The biggest differences that I've noticed have been
fuller low frequency representation from my tracks and a more up front quality that
happens to easily sit in the mix without the need for a lot of processing. With certain
preamps, especially clean and fast ones, there is a certain sheen to each track that
sounds very polished without any processing and that makes things a joy to mix. With
certain preamps with fast transient response there is a definite punchiness to the tracks
(API, Neve 1073, True Systems, Great River etc...)
It's all subtle though and
it takes understanding to know what to listen for. As has been already mentioned it's
also much more apparent with several tracks.
|
Ian Savage
Joined: 16/12/07
Posts: 475
|
|
Even going from the built-in Presonus pres in my Firestudio to the relatively modest ART
DPSII I've noticed a big improvement in vocal recordings; to use subjective language less
'harsh' and sitting in the mix better. If I could afford to spend a few hundred quid on a
preamp (and had the mics to make it worthwhile) I'd have no hesitation in doing so.
|
dickiefunk
Joined: 17/06/05
Posts: 1108
Loc: Cornwall, UK
|
|
I recently tried out a whole bunch of pres :-
M-Audio DMP3, M-Audio Tampa, ART
MPA Gold (with NOS Telefunken tubes, Studio Projects VTB1, Yamaha MLA-7, Behringer
UB2442.
I mainly record vocals so haven't really tried these preamps on lots of
sources.
Out of these the M-Audio Tampa was my favourite but all my mics just
seemed to sound a little harsh, thin and brittle when used with really powerful singers.
Recently I picked up a Focusrite ISA One with digital card and was surprised
at the difference! The first thing I noticed was how smooth my mics sounded. The harshness
has now gone. Also, I wasn't quite expecting how much quieter this preamp is as I already
thought my Tampa and DMP3 were very quiet!! For me the upgrade to a more high end preamp
was worth it and I'm very glad I did!! I'm now after one more preamp to compliment it and
am considering either an Audient Mico, Grace M101, True Systems P-Solo or DAV BG9.
|
valjean24601
Joined: 04/07/05
Posts: 290
|
|
Quote:
I recently tried
out a whole bunch of pres :-
M-Audio DMP3, M-Audio Tampa, ART MPA Gold (with
NOS Telefunken tubes, Studio Projects VTB1, Yamaha MLA-7, Behringer UB2442.
I
mainly record vocals so haven't really tried these preamps on lots of sources.
I've had very good results
recently with the studio projects VTB1 on some rock/pop vocals that I was tracking. It has
a blend knob that goes from total solid state to total 'valve' but I found it sounded best
leaving that knob centred without any bias to either side. Sounded very robust on this
particular voice.
|
John Willett
Circle Sound Services
Joined: 07/03/00
Posts: 11030
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
|
|
What are the mics? It's no good having high-end pres with low-end mics as they will only
highlight the deficiencies in the mics.
But in my book, it's always best to
go with the best you can afford.
By the way - Happy Birthday Elf.  
--------------------
John
President - Fédération Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons
|
Setter
member
Joined: 06/11/02
Posts: 500
Loc: Tesside UK
|
|
Quote John Willett:
What are the
mics? It's no good having high-end pres with low-end mics as they will only highlight the
deficiencies in the mics.
I
thought I'd read somewhere on this forum about high end pre-amps improving the sound from
low end mics quite a lot. But I agree 100% about the need to upgrade the weakest link
first.
Quote John Willett:
But in my book, it's always best to go with the best you can afford.
Unless that means spending
all your money for a marginal improvement. In which case (IMHO) it is best to wait till
you can afford a real step change. Thankfully I've lost count of the the money I've wasted
on incremental improvements (mostly on microphones)! which I never use again after making
the next small imrpovement.
J
|
The Elf
active member
Joined: 14/08/01
Posts: 3109
Loc: Sheffield, UK
|
|
Quote John Willett:
By the way -
Happy Birthday Elf.
Thank you, John!
It was going to be a day of leisure, but life seems to have
other plans for me... 
--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
|
Gear Reviews
Previous
Topics
Next
Threaded
Anyone replaced lowend preamps with highend - What happened?
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
Re: Anyone replaced lowend preamps with highend - What happened?
