Hello,

In October's issue of Sound On Sound we tried to cut through some of the hype surrounding mic preamps, to find out how much of a difference they really made in one particular real-world recording situation: tracking a grand piano. Jonathan Dodd of Realpiano was kind enough to let us use his Yamaha Disklavier, which can reproduce the same performance from a MIDI file with uncanny accuracy. Session pianist Matt Cooper created a short MIDI piece that gave the piano a full workout, and we recorded it... over and over again!

We used three different mic setups: a pair of Brauner cardioid valve mics, a pair of Sennheiser MKH20 omni small-diaphragm capacitor mics, and a Royer SF12 passive stereo ribbon mic. These were recorded in turn through eight different preamps, representing a wide range of design approaches, from the preamps in a budget mixer to a valve preamp costing over £2000. Subscribers can read the full article here, and the audio files are available for everyone to download here. The catch is that I've removed any reference to which preamp is which from the names of the files...

...so, how much of a difference can you discern between the preamps, and can you guess which preamp is which? The key will be revealed in due course, but as a quick reminder, the eight preamps featured were:

AMS Neve 1073LB
API 3124+
ART Pro MPA II
GP Electronics PML 200E
Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro MkII
Maselec MMA-4XR
Prism Sound Orpheus
SSL XLogic VHD Pre

These are referred to (not in the above order) by the letters A to H in the audio examples.

We're very curious to hear SOS readers' opinions!

I'm quite curious to find out which is which, I could do with a second preamp and I hope that
I prefer one of the cheaper preamps.

However the more I listen to them the more confusing it gets so I've just listened to the
first section to keep it simple.

Favourite
(A) Smooth 'tubey' top end.
(H) Sounds more stereo than others?
(E) Clean accurate, neutral and smooth.
(D) Good not much character. is this cheap?
(B) Classy vintage sound. is this expensive?
(G) Clean accurate neutral
(C) Vague/dreamy mids
(F) Dark
To Least Favourite

Listening to the next microphone section somewhat changes the ratings,
so I guess I'm just rating the combination of Brauner and pre.

Edited by tiberius (21/09/12 01:46 AM)

Having only listened to the SF12 variations so far. To be perfectly honest, this kind of makes me want to send back my semi-expensive preamps to the dealer... The differences between these preamps are -from what I can hear, totally negligible for the type of (pop) productions I am involved with.

Maybe a little difference does add up once you start piling tracks on top of each other, but unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'm inclined to think I'd be just as good off with my standard interface preamps for that floor tom at the back of the mix.

When I started recording, just about everyone used the preamps in the desk and just got on with it. A few people, mainly American, talked about using different preamps but most engineers didn't think that the small difference between properly designed preamps was worth the effort. Mic choice and positioning is still far more important than preamp choice but I guess the marketing people have taken over now and confused everyone.

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Interesting, I'll have a listen later, not that I really use pre-amps in my music, but it will be interesting nonetheless.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

It was a very interesting test to do -- and finding the Disklavier was the key to making this work as we could think of no other way of ensureing reliably repeatable performances for each mic/preamp combination.

When we were listening back to the recordings -- in full knowledge of what preamp was in use -- we were convinced we could percieve significant differences. But when the recordings are anonimised it is actually remarkably difficult to accurately identify each preamp!

We specifically chose to challenge the preamps with low output ribbons and high output capacitor mics, and to use a wide dynamic range source... but we didn't try deliberately 'pushing' the preamps to force preamp character that way -- these were all essentially purist recordings and, as you can plainly hear, even the cheapest modern preamps manage to deliver a perfectly usable sound that is pretty accurate and uncoloured.

James is quite right when he says mic choice and positioning are far more critical in terms of sound quality and character... although I think the better preamps still do manage to capture or deliver something that is subtly preferable given a choice.

H

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Fascinating one this! Like Hugh I felt that all the preamps put in a usable performance -- certainly from a mixability perspective within a normal commercial production context.

That said, I probably wouldn't choose preamps F (slightly 'plasticky' somehow), C (felt a touch boxy tonally), and B (too strident in the midrange) based on these files, and my opinion was that A, D, and E gave the clearest presentation across all the mics. G and H were also alright, but the former rather muffled at the high end, while the latter seemed to be the opposite in that it seemed a little zingy. To use the most scientific of terms...

But I'm almost positive I couldn't reliably tell which one I was listening to in a blind test.

--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

This is a fascinating test, particularly since I'm currently evaluating a range of Nebula 3 character preamp presets for a forthcoming SOS review that include an API and ART tube models. It also echos my views (already mentioned by Frank) that mic, mic placement and acoustic treatment choices are all mroe important that any tonal difference between preamps.

Thanks for putting in all the effort guys, although I suspect a few people may consider that 96kHz files might demonstrate any tonal differences more clearly!

OK – on a fairly brief listen I'll throw in my two pennorth.

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

I forgot to mention one thing... The letters are NOT the same for each set of mics. In other words preamp A for the Brauners is not the same as preamp A for the Sennheisers or Royers. Apologies for the confusion - I thought it would be best to change the order each time as that can have quite an influence on one's perceptions.

---

DOH!!

Here are my original notes for all three separately then

Brauner

A nuetral and rich - NICE!
B slighty veiled at top end, otherwise rich mids and low end
C slightly harsh midrange
D bigger bottom end NICE!
E clearer, more transparent NICE!
F close & intimate
G slightly distant
H closed in


MKH

A no particular sound
B intimate, can hear further in NICE!
C slightly hard midrange
D nuetral
E intimate
F warm, close and detailed
G warm and intimate
H rich mids



Royer

A less detailed
B shrill top notes
C warmer bottom end
D delicate, intimate
E less detailed
F detailed yet nuetral, with midrange richness - NICE!
G less detailed
H shrill & slightly harsh

Your mileage may vary



Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

Hi,

Nice test !

The first thing I could say is that differences are really really subtle ...

But I'll go for the E !

Edited by DVallet (21/09/12 04:40 PM)

H is the most obviously different over all the mics. I've only had a quick listen but it stands out against the others; something veiled or murky about it makes the low end a bit more prominent.

What is the piston like noise? Is it the mechanism playing the keys?

The most obvious thing is the difference between the mics, which sound quite different, but both nice. I think the Royer would be mice choice, but I've not listened properly yet.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

I need to listen properly to work out an order of preference but they only one that made me sit up was E. Great clarity.

I noticed the loudest part of the track clips briefly....was this intentional so we could hear the preamps pushed to their limit?!

I forgot to mention one thing... The letters are NOT the same for each set of mics. In other words preamp A for the Brauners is not the same as preamp A for the Sennheisers or Royers. Apologies for the confusion - I thought it would be best to change the order each time as that can have quite an influence on one's perceptions.

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

I forgot to mention one thing... The letters are NOT the same for each set of mics. In other words preamp A for the Brauners is not the same as preamp A for the Sennheisers or Royers. Apologies for the confusion - I thought it would be best to change the order each time as that can have quite an influence on one's perceptions.

---

Ha, good idea. In which case, I meant that E in the MKH20 lineup stood out for me!

Quote mjfe2:

---

I noticed the loudest part of the track clips briefly....was this intentional so we could hear the preamps pushed to their limit?!

---

No! It was a boo-boo. I thought we were recording a bit hot, but at the time we didn't spot it on playback so I let it go. There's also a problem with the Brauner H file which has just been pointed out to me. I'll fix that on Monday.

interesting article. Preamp examples are pretty hard to pick apart from each other. I tended to prefer D, E and H and only really had an issue with C which sounded a little thin to me. On another type of source (horn etc)... I might prefer A which sounded especially roasty. (For the Brauner comparison)

Edited by gennaroschiano (22/09/12 05:47 AM)

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

I forgot to mention one thing... The letters are NOT the same for each set of mics.

---

I'd assumed they were -- I'll have to have another listen! My comments above were mostly based on the Brauners, though. Still, the fact that I didn't notice illustrates how little I can reliably identify which preamp is which!



--------------------
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio
A complete mixing method based around the techniques of the world's most famous producers.

Ah that explains a lot. I thought I'd need a different preamp for each microphone...

Hmmm... I think the point is already proven: while there are subtle differences between preamps, they really are very, very, very subtle and not terribly significant in the grand scheme of things for most situations. If you like to push the preamp for deliberate colouration, of need unusually high gain for distant ribbons the differences might become more important. But in general, modern preamps are all remarkably good -- even many cheap ones!

H

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote mjfe2:

---

I noticed the loudest part of the track clips briefly....was this intentional so we could hear the preamps pushed to their limit?!

---

No, not intentional at all -- it was an annoying faux pas. Our host was 'old school' and liked to work with negligible headroom... And was caught out on occasion. The large number of permutations we had to work through and the limited time meant we weren't able to audition all the playbacks and repeat takes. Profuse apologies -- but I don't think it detracts too much from the aim of the comparisons.

H

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote mjfe2:

---

I noticed the loudest part of the track clips briefly....was this intentional so we could hear the preamps pushed to their limit?!

---

No, not intentional at all -- it was an annoying faux pas. Our host was 'old school' and liked to work with negligible headroom... And was caught out on occasion. The large number of permutations we had to work through and the limited time meant we weren't able to audition all the playbacks and repeat takes. Profuse apologies -- but I don't think it detracts too much from the aim of the comparisons.

---

No worries, it hasn't detracted from what is a great comparison. As for 'old school', if only people appreciated that old school is really leaving 20dB or so of headroom! If only everyone read this: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep10/articles/qa0910-1.htm

Not really an unexpected result, as you say, anything reasonable is usually not going to be the weak link.
Preamp choice is as much about studio marketing as sound engineering, the client wants a U87 with an Avalon preamp, fine, that is what hire is for, will it make a difference, probably not on a technical level, but if they are happy, odds are I will get a better take.

I do notice however that the SF12 is the only mic in the test that lacks an active output stage, all the others have the impedance converter in the mic (which is effectively the first stage of the preamp), it might be that throwing an SM57 or RE20 or something in there would have been rather more revealing of any differences that were there?

Given that for me this test is as close to a null result as makes no difference, I am just wondering if some of the claimed 'major' differences between preamps might be down to preamp/mic interaction, which will surely be reduced substantially by using mics with built in power gain.
Some of it is clearly differences in clipping behaviour, and most of it is probably marketing bulshytt aided by a healthy dose of nobody calling the emperor out for public nudity, but I just thought I would flag up the (quite reasonable) limitation of the study.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Yes, it does seem as if you avoided testing microphones that MIGHT have responded differently with different preamps. Whether it would take anything more than a suitable shunt resistor to level the field is another question!

Yea, going there is a combinatorial explosion however, and it is not even clear that there is a meaningful effect there to be found.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

this is a lovely example of the craft - the craft of capturing audio properly. Mics and mic placement - rooms are gifts or curses. Good ears know the difference. Some of us have 'it' some of us dont.

For me the best preamp is A.
Warm, clean and detailed.
But I listened only on headphones, when I'll have enough time I'll try listening on my speakers.
Very useful test.
Thank you SOS!

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Yes, it does seem as if you avoided testing microphones that MIGHT have responded differently with different preamps.

---

Not at all, that was exactly why we included the Royer ribbon mic. In theory, a passive ribbon mic with a transformer balanced output should be sensitive to the preamp's input impedance, and also of course requires a lot more gain than most capacitor mics.

We did think briefly about trying a pair of SM57s or similar. But then we thought 'Who the hell records a grand piano with a pair of 57s?'

I have seen it claimed repeatedly on other forums that preamp choice makes a massive difference even with modern, high output capacitor mics...

Quote Gianluca5080:

---

For me the best preamp is A.

---

Again let me reiterate that A is different in each set of files - the order is not the same.

Apologies if I've missed it but... are the actual results anywhere? I bought the magazine and I cannot find the actual results. They are not on here either. It's only fair to actually put the results somewhere and let people choose to know or not know whilst they listen to the results.

Yes... they're in a text file on my computer at home!

We will be making the key available later on, but for the time being, it's a blind test for everyone.

Fair enough - could you blummin' hurry up then! Will it be today? Just put a link up that people can either choose to click on or not, should they want to know.

Regarding Preamps in general, there is certainly an obsession, especially in the U.S where I've known people refuse to record until their chain is in place... the correct mic is not enough. Neve or Neve-alike pre's usually get the nod for vocals with API for recording drums or bass. Neve alike pre's can be an attractive option with the Aurora being a favourite and the Great River pre's being a nice neve'ish option.

I can say from personal experience, mics can sound a lot different through different pre's and I think people do underestimate the link. For instance, I have a Peluso VTB and for vocals, through an API pre, it sounds brilliant, same through an Apogee (Mini-Me) - however through a UA 610, it does not sound right at all. I want to trial a Neve with this mic. On the flipside, other mics sounds right through the 610. The 610 seems to impart a darkness to the signal and can be nice hooked up to a brighter mic with less bottom.

Anyway, I'd like to see a similar test done to the one here but with different sources - as some will shine in one area whilst others will shine elsewhere. Ideally, a test with these pre's but with vocals, drums, etc etc; would have been brilliant.

Thanks RW. I guess it would be easy enough to do a similar test for electric guitars, thanks to the wonders of re-amping, but with sources such as drums and vocals, you run into the problem of how to ensure a precisely repeatable performance.

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

Thanks RW. I guess it would be easy enough to do a similar test for electric guitars, thanks to the wonders of re-amping, but with sources such as drums and vocals, you run into the problem of how to ensure a precisely repeatable performance.

---

I agree but I think people would forgive you for not being able to accomplish the exact same take - it might still show some of the characteristics of different pre's. Maybe one for a future issue... the 'pre-rematch'!

RW has nailed it for me.

Good as this comparison is, I don't think it addresses the real reason why I think people want different pre-amps which is - what Pre-amp/mic combo is more likely to suit the source.

Its widely agreed that you should select an appropriate mic for the source/room, so why not a pre-amp? It may make a smaller difference but if it makes even a small one its worth it. Anyone who has purchased any high end piece of audio gear is aware of the law of diminishing returns, but we do it as any improvement however small is usually worth it.

As has been stated, If you do rock guitars and have either ribbon or dynamic mics, you are going to find an API style pre-amp does the business more often then not due to its fat mid push, and tight low end

Acoustic guitar recorded through some SDC's? Neve style pre-amp is probably going to do it for you, as its general character has a sweet top end and big bottom.
Thin/harsh or 'reedy' vocal through an LDC - Neve again is probably a good place to start for similar reasons as above.

It doesn't work in every case and you should always try a few pre's/mic on things you are unfamiliar with, but as a general default it works, and at the very least provides a good starting point or frame of reference...

I quite agree that the mic / preamp interface can be a major source of audible differences with passive mics, and that's why we included the Royer mic in the test. Even so, differences are still often very subtle and mic positioning is still the dominant factor.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote jaminem:

---

I don't think it addresses the real reason why I think people want different pre-amps which is - what Pre-amp/mic combo is more likely to suit the source.

---

Surely that's precisely what this comparison questions? The mic positioning is clearly critical, and the sound of the mic is significant in the overall tonality, but does the mic pre really make that much difference, or is it actually largely wishful thinking? It became fashionable to pair mics, pres, and sources, to the extent that it has entered urban mythology and become 'widely agreed'... But how much validity underlies that?

Yes, transformers and valves can impart audible character that can be help or hinder depending on the situation, but I would suggest its never a deal breaker, and the desired character can usually be obtained through different mic choice or placement. That's the way I was trained, anyway, because the only pres were those in the console -- and that's the way thousands of hit records were made!

It's always worth questioning 'widely agreed' things from time to time...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote jaminem:

---

I don't think it addresses the real reason why I think people want different pre-amps which is - what Pre-amp/mic combo is more likely to suit the source.

---

Surely that's precisely what this comparison questions? The mic positioning is clearly critical, and the sound of the mic is significant in the overall tonality, but does the mic pre really make that much difference, or is it actually largely wishful thinking? It became fashionable to pair mics, pres, and sources, to the extent that it has entered urban mythology and become 'widely agreed'... But how much validity underlies that?

Yes, transformers and valves can impart audible character that can be help or hinder depending on the situation, but I would suggest its never a deal breaker, and the desired character can usually be obtained through different mic choice or placement. That's the way I was trained, anyway, because the only pres were those in the console -- and that's the way thousands of hit records were made!

It's always worth questioning 'widely agreed' things from time to time...

Hugh

---

I agree for the most part and for sure, mic and position is the biggest deal but I can honestly say that different mics can work and interact differently when paired with different pre's and in my experience, the difference can be quite big; I'm talking mainly on vox, in my case. Of course, there's then the whole other argument about driving a pre - such as an API for more saturation VS keeping it clean.

In any case, it's a great test you've done and it's good to see the pre' myth being questioned / tested and brought to the fore.

Quote R W:

---

I can say from personal experience, mics can sound a lot different through different pre's and I think people do underestimate the link.

---

OK. Do you agree, however, that this test indicates that mics DON'T sound a lot different through different preamps?

It's most heartening that a gear-based magazine should have published a comparative test of master clocks ending with "but you probably don't need one" and now a blind test of preamps demonstrating (would you agree?) quite conclusively that they make little if any audible difference.

Cheekily withholding the information that A in the first test wasn't necessarily A in the second should have made a few people (a) feel slightly embarassed then (b) think pretty hard!

Performance first, then Instrument, Mic positioning, Room, then a long way behind the details of the rest of the chain.

The obsessing over really tiny details I mostly do not really get, I mean even the cheapest prosumer preamp and ADC are orders of magnitude better then the stuff they used to capture Muddy Waters, Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald and the Beatles....
What is usually not better is the room, the performances and the skills of the operators.

Sure it can be interesting to measure and experiment with the small stuff, but it is very much the case that it is mostly interesting to recording types rather then being something likely to make a major impact on the shipping product volumes.

Preamps are largely a marketing thing at every level of the trade, from manufactures marketing four colour glossies, down to studios selling on having the shiny kit (Why do you think the Avalon stuff has that massively machined front panel?).

One interesting thing to do is to take a high end condenser and two speakers and do some IMD tests on the thing, it usually fairly quickly becomes apparent why condensers have a reputation for a slightly sizzly top end (Hint, it is mostly non harmonic mixing products due to the mics non linearity, which is why it does not show up on a single tone sweep), against a glaring issue like that, the details of what the preamp does are largely irrelevant.

About the only piece of the recording chain that is not so close to perfect as makes little difference (even with cheapish, but not bottom feeder kit) is the transducers at either end, and the room they are in, everything else is noise in comparison.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote R W:

---

I can say from personal experience, mics can sound a lot different through different pre's and I think people do underestimate the link.

---

OK. Do you agree, however, that this test indicates that mics DON'T sound a lot different through different preamps?

It's most heartening that a gear-based magazine should have published a comparative test of master clocks ending with "but you probably don't need one" and now a blind test of preamps demonstrating (would you agree?) quite conclusively that they make little if any audible difference.

Cheekily withholding the information that A in the first test wasn't necessarily A in the second should have made a few people (a) feel slightly embarassed then (b) think pretty hard!

---

Well, I think the test they've done is good - I'm just saying that from personal experience, I have some nice mics and pre's to hand and, on vocals, I can hear quite a large difference. To the extent that, I would now never pair my VTB with my UA pre. Whilst I may pair another mic with it. I completely agree that the performer, mic and room are more important than the pre, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean that it's not worth exploring these things. One thing to note is that any tiny difference becomes magnified when you stack tracks... so for vocals, for instance, if you stack a ton of tracks, the character of the pre can become very evident. Neve pre's seem to have a pleasant harmonic top end that may seem almost inaudible in some cases - but it is there and if you have a ton of tracks recorded though a Neve, that pleasant 'feature' does add up.

So what is the legend? Which pre amp correponds to A? to B? etc? Have I missed something here
?

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

It's always worth questioning 'widely agreed' things from time to time...

Hugh

---

Hugh if you're going to paraphrase me you should at least read what I wrote.

I said its widely agreed you should pick the best mic for the room/source.
I doubt you'd disagree with that?

My point simply is - if one pre-amp sounds better than another on a particular source however subtle the effect and you have them, then use them.

If you don't have options, like in the old'un days when all you had was a console, then that's what you'd use.

Put an SM57 on a guitar cab, through a DAV pre-amp and then an API pre-amp. Play some rock, chances are you'd pick the API because it does make a huge difference to the sound.

That'll be why people recording that kind of music for a living favour that product, because it does suit it better.

Quote R W:

---

...but I can honestly say that different mics can work and interact differently when paired with different pre's...

---

Absolutely, I quite agree, and it's something we have discussed inthe magazine and in this forum many times before. The input impedance of the preamp can certainly make a noticeable difference when using dynamic mics and some old-school transformer-balanced mics, and/or when the preamp impedance is unusually low or high.

But in my experience it is rarely significant when using modern active-output capacitor mics, and even where the sound is affected it's still a relatively insignificant element of the whole recording chain.

Put it this way, while I prefer to work with decent, well designed, high-end preamps (who doesn't?), I can't think of any occasion where I had no option but to send the talent home because I couldn't get the desired sound using the mics and preamps available to me at the time! Not even when using a budget Mackie console and low-cost mics! Performance and mic position matter so much more...

Quote:

---

...there's then the whole other argument about driving a pre...

---

Agreed again. If you want a specific form of overdrive distortion then the choice of preamp becomes critical because of the way it behaves when abused, and different designs will inevitably behave differently. That kind of specialised application was outside the remit of our comparison on this test, but I think we may well have a feature considering that kind of thing in a future issue.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Aten:

---

So what is the legend? Which pre amp correponds to A? to B? etc? Have I missed something here
?

---

As Sam has already explined further up the thread, he will reveal which preamps correspond to which letters in each of the three separate comparisons after we've given everyone a decent chance to (a) buy the mag, (b) read the article, (c) listen to the examples, and (d) discuss their views here.

Stand by...

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

Quote Gianluca5080:

---

For me the best preamp is A.

---

Again let me reiterate that A is different in each set of files - the order is not the same.

---

Yes, it was my fault, I intended I liked best the combo A preamp with Sennheiser MKH20s.

Quote jaminem:

---

My point simply is - if one pre-amp sounds better than another on a particular source however subtle the effect and you have them, then use them.

---

Of course! Who wouldn't compare and choose the sound they preferred -- if they have a choice.

However, the fact is that most people don't have the choice because of budget constraints. Yet 'what preamp should I buy' is one of the most common questions on this and most other audio forums (just behind what 'monitor' should I buy for £200... ) -- and the reason people ask that question is becuase they are regularly cajoled by 'widely agreed' views expressed in magazines and forums into believing that they must have an API preamp for recording drums, or an Avalon for vocals, or whatever because no other combination is capable of delivering acceptable results.

As you will already realise, that's not a view I share. To me, a good preamp is a good preamp, full stop. Okay, so not all preamps are good -- particularly some older designs. I used to work regularly with a Soundcraft TS24 console in the early 1980s and that had shocking mic preamps --something that was glaringly obvious when recording 12-string acoustics. I often resorted to using a Neve suitcase mixer for the more critical inputs, but even so, my colleagues and I still achieved very acceptable recordings using that console.

And yes, some preamps have noticeable characters when directly compared, and which can be used to good effect, if the option arises, to enhance or compensate for the characteristics of specific microphones or sources -- but the differences are never night and day, it's way more subtle than that, and rarely particularly significant in the grand scheme of things. At least, not to me.

Of course, others may have different views and that's their prerogative, but I think Sam's comparison does highlight just how minimal the differences usually are. The grand piano is about the single most challenging source to record, with complex harmonics and vast dynamics. Distortions and colourations are easy to spot. We've compared preamps at both extremes of budget here, and with the common classics also included. Most people will 'widely agree' that the difference between an API and a Neve 1073 preamp is night and day... yet it seems most people are actually struggling to reliably identify them -- or even form a common consensus of preference -- when faced with the anonymised comparisons in this article!

That should give some pause for thought and re-evaluation, if nothing else.

There's nothing wrong with comparing and contrasting different preamps with different mics, or of choosing one combination over another for subjective and personal reasons. Everyone with the option will do that naturally, and feel they have gained something worthwhile in the process. That's human nature -- and we're certainly not saying that there is no difference in character and tonality because there clearly is.

But what we are questioning is just how great those differences really are, and whether they are as significant as popular opinion would suggest -- because that matters to those on limited budgets who might feel inadequate when forced to record drums using their Saffire preamps instead of a rack of APIs.

It's certainly nice to have the luxury of being able to record through Neve or API or Avalon, or whatever flavour preamp appeals, and to be able to compare them directly. And I'm well known for appreciating the quality of high end preamps...but to my ears the differences are relatively subtle and for most of our readers the actual recording quality is limited by the venue acoustics in 99% of cases, not the recording chain.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQjDei2zbY

Robot drummer for the next test?

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Quote jaminem:

---

Its widely agreed that you should select an appropriate mic for the source/room, so why not a pre-amp? It may make a smaller difference but if it makes even a small one its worth it. Anyone who has purchased any high end piece of audio gear is aware of the law of diminishing returns, but we do it as any improvement however small is usually worth it.

---

None of this constitutes an argument! To your first sentence I'd answer, because countless (great sounding) hit records were made on console preamps. And I completely disagree with your next two sentences. The law of diminishing returns is not the same for every category of product. It's very likely that a £1000 mic is going to be a bigger improvement on a £200 mic than two equivalently priced preamps. (And even with mics, the recent vocal mic shootout in SOS showed that expensive mics aren't always preferable.)

So I would say that small differences are not always worth it, especially when they cost thousands of pounds. Think what you could buy with the money instead. Better mics, better monitors....you could even hire a better room!

Anyway, thanks SOS for withholding the results, I think people need to sweat a litle longer! And maybe in the meantime someone can try and link pre X on mic A with pre Y on mic B and so on

Incidentally, in the classical world I think esoteric preamps become even more irrelevant. But I do know one very good producer/engineer who said the one time he heard his Millennia pres really come into their own was on a huge orchestral crash (bass drum and everything). Apparently the explosion was handled 'effortlessly'.

Quote:

---

One thing to note is that any tiny difference becomes magnified when you stack tracks... so for vocals, for instance, if you stack a ton of tracks, the character of the pre can become very evident. Neve pre's seem to have a pleasant harmonic top end that may seem almost inaudible in some cases - but it is there and if you have a ton of tracks recorded though a Neve, that pleasant 'feature' does add up.

---

That is the argument most used by some friends of mine, although I am currently not inclined to believe them. What do you guys think of that? Maybe that would require another test...

--------------------
www.estudiodrummond.com.br

Quote Daniel Drummond:

---

Quote:

---

One thing to note is that any tiny difference becomes magnified when you stack tracks... so for vocals, for instance, if you stack a ton of tracks, the character of the pre can become very evident. Neve pre's seem to have a pleasant harmonic top end that may seem almost inaudible in some cases - but it is there and if you have a ton of tracks recorded though a Neve, that pleasant 'feature' does add up.

---

That is the argument most used by some friends of mine, although I am currently not inclined to believe them. What do you guys think of that? Maybe that would require another test...

---

I believe it to be true. API pre's can have a tiny mid range presence that through stacking can become obvious. That's my personal experience and I have spoken with others who share the exact same conclusion.

Quote mjfe2:

---

Quote jaminem:

---

Its widely agreed that you should select an appropriate mic for the source/room, so why not a pre-amp? It may make a smaller difference but if it makes even a small one its worth it. Anyone who has purchased any high end piece of audio gear is aware of the law of diminishing returns, but we do it as any improvement however small is usually worth it.

---

None of this constitutes an argument! To your first sentence I'd answer, because countless (great sounding) hit records were made on console preamps.

---

I might be missing something... but these consoles you speak of; what preamps were in them?

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

But what we are questioning is just how great those differences really are, and whether they are as significant as popular opinion would suggest -- because that matters to those on limited budgets who might feel inadequate when forced to record drums using their Saffire preamps instead of a rack of APIs.

---

This is a key point and worth highlighting. I may be coming across as pro-pre here, speaking of high end pre's but it is certainly true to say that most decent pre's will get the job done and done well. I'll not dispute that. I have heard amazing recordings done through an Mbox1 and a £30 microphone; so it's worth not losing sight of what Hugh is saying. Never-the-less, it's a worthy avenue to explore and I'm glad SOS have.

Quote R W:

---

Quote mjfe2:

---

Quote jaminem:

---

Its widely agreed that you should select an appropriate mic for the source/room, so why not a pre-amp? It may make a smaller difference but if it makes even a small one its worth it. Anyone who has purchased any high end piece of audio gear is aware of the law of diminishing returns, but we do it as any improvement however small is usually worth it.

---

None of this constitutes an argument! To your first sentence I'd answer, because countless (great sounding) hit records were made on console preamps.

---

I might be missing something... but these consoles you speak of; what preamps were in them?

---

True, but they weren't always high end. The point I'd prefer to make (which was made earlier in this thread) is that 'choosing a preamp' for each session wasn't one of the creative decisions made. It was pragmatic: we've had this desk for X years now so we don't even think twice about whether we're going to use its preamps (let alone match them to certain mics).

I am interested in the idea of layering up preamps though. That's one thing that the shootout doesn't address (actually I haven't read the article yet..). Perhaps this will be the next super-accurate plugin to come out? But then the plugin manufacturer would have to convince people that an average preamp will do in the first place...

Quote R W:

---

I can say from personal experience, mics can sound a lot different through different pre's and I think people do underestimate the link. For instance, I have a Peluso VTB and for vocals, through an API pre, it sounds brilliant, same through an Apogee (Mini-Me) - however through a UA 610, it does not sound right at all. I want to trial a Neve with this mic. On the flipside, other mics sounds right through the 610. The 610 seems to impart a darkness to the signal and can be nice hooked up to a brighter mic with less bottom.

---

R W - out of interest, have you done a blind test of this? Because in fact what you're saying here exactly parallels our experiences while we were doing the tests. When we listened back in the knowledge that we had just recorded a Neve or API or whatever, we were convinced we could hear significant differences. But when that psychological expectation was removed, suddenly the differences seemed minute...

The question of how preamps 'stack' across many tracks is an interesting one. I can believe that, say, the mid-range emphasis of an API would become more obvious in that situation. But is it an effect you couldn't recreate simply by EQing the master bus?

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

Quote R W:

---

I can say from personal experience, mics can sound a lot different through different pre's and I think people do underestimate the link. For instance, I have a Peluso VTB and for vocals, through an API pre, it sounds brilliant, same through an Apogee (Mini-Me) - however through a UA 610, it does not sound right at all. I want to trial a Neve with this mic. On the flipside, other mics sounds right through the 610. The 610 seems to impart a darkness to the signal and can be nice hooked up to a brighter mic with less bottom.

---

R W - out of interest, have you done a blind test of this? Because in fact what you're saying here exactly parallels our experiences while we were doing the tests. When we listened back in the knowledge that we had just recorded a Neve or API or whatever, we were convinced we could hear significant differences. But when that psychological expectation was removed, suddenly the differences seemed minute...

---

The tests have been blind, indeed. If someone put my mics (that I know well) through my pre's in any order, I reckon I could tell which pre was used. Now I know that sounds like a challenge best left to one of Matthew Kelly's 'You Bet' stars but I am sure of this. I will say that Hugh made the point, that people may feel inadequate with what they have at their disposal due to these kind of discussions and I'd never want that to happen. I agree with the idea that no half decent pre will ever stand in the way of a good recording...

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

The question of how preamps 'stack' across many tracks is an interesting one. I can believe that, say, the mid-range emphasis of an API would become more obvious in that situation. But is it an effect you couldn't recreate simply by EQing the master bus?

---

Yes it could be dealt with with EQ but I'm not always sure the 'presence' is that simple. There have been a few blind tests, that I've heard of, where Neve was always chosen for vocals... but again, this may just be feeding the myth.

I'm curious about how the stacking myth still continues to confuse people this day and age...
Haven't heard any such effect during the years - and it has also been sorted out and explained very nicely by Ethan Winer: http://audioundone.com/the-stacking-myth .

However - if you have the same preamp on all tracks (if you don't use transparent preamps, that is), the coloring might feel a bit annoying since it's the same on everything - but since you normally use eq and other stuff to color the tracks in the mix, that's hardly a problem anyway...

That you could hear the expected character of each pre-amp when you know which was which but your choices became unreliable when anonamised seems to simply confirm how powerful a phenomenom confirmation bias really is.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

An amazing comparison that reminds me very much of the old 'expensive hi-fi interconnect' debate: When blind A/B tests are conducted, differences become very minimal and it is hard to say what is better/worse
We really need a phase accurate test though - I am guessing the Diskclavier is not that tight!
At this point it would be cool to mic up a repeatable file through a speaker and get some 'difference' analysis of the pres. Others will know better than I but I believe someone did a CD of hi-fi mythbusting with phase nulling tests?
Thanks SOS for a thought-provoking article. The only definitive result for me was that the Royer sounds very nice on piano!

Quote Wetlabs:

---

We really need a phase accurate test though - I am guessing the Diskclavier is not that tight!

---

Even that won't convince the believers! It's strange, but you need a much stronger argument to prove the obvious fact that there ISN'T a God than to justify the bizarre opinion that there IS. Almost as if divine intervention is distorting our minds... :-)

The problem with the Brauner_H file has now been fixed. If you already downloaded the entire archive, you can also just download the revised Brauner_H file:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preampsmedia.htm

Quote Wetlabs:

---

The only definitive result for me was that the Royer sounds very nice on piano!

---

It does, doesn't it? Even with such a non-standard position, too!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Daniel Davis:

---

... seems to simply confirm how powerful a phenomenom confirmation bias really is.

---

Absolutely -- yet few seem to believe it!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Daniel Davis:

---

... seems to simply confirm how powerful a phenomenom confirmation bias really is.

---

Absolutely -- yet few seem to believe it!

---

Careful! Carry on with this tack and half the magazine can be replaced with "Oh, by the way, there's a new XYZ out. But don't bother - the one you've got is just fine!" :-)

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Chopstix:

---

http://audioundone.com/the-stacking-myth

---

Great article about the stacking myth.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Careful! Carry on with this tack and half the magazine can be replaced with "Oh, by the way, there's a new XYZ out. But don't bother - the one you've got is just fine!" :-)

---

And wouldn't that just be a breath of fresh air!

Actually, SOS is nowhere near as bad as some are in this respect, but it is as always a fine line to tread.

"There is a new XYZ out, it does this well, and that not so much, if you already have the room and the monitoring sorted it might make a difference to FOO. It is broadly comparable to a JKL, a little more expensive but the build quality is better, you might also wish to look at a QWE (Better protools integration, balanced IO) or a VBW (More front panels controls and less menus), the improvement is subtle and it takes a good room and excellent monitoring to hear the difference....."

IIRC it usually goes something like that!

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Quote Daniel Drummond:

---

Quote Chopstix:

---

http://audioundone.com/the-stacking-myth

---

Great article about the stacking myth.

---

Not that I'm trying to protect the "stacking myth" but the article is a gross simplification to say the least. If preamps differed only in static frequency response, there would be no sense to have so many different preamp flavours - they all could be emulated with an EQ .. in a world where any equalisation is a completely linear process.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Daniel Davis:

---

... seems to simply confirm how powerful a phenomenom confirmation bias really is.

---

Absolutely -- yet few seem to believe it!

---

Careful! Carry on with this tack and half the magazine can be replaced with "Oh, by the way, there's a new XYZ out. But don't bother - the one you've got is just fine!" :-)

---

One of the reasons I have been a long time subscriber to SOS is the reputation the magazine has developed for identifying expensive solutions with diminishing returns, accurately characterizing the situations in which those subtle advantages are important and worth the money, and helping your readers identify the higher yield investments first. Virtually all my purchases that have been guided by your reviews have performed as expected from your descriptions. When you occasionally point out an inexpensive solution that works nearly as well, the same, or better than the expensive solution, you do a real service to your readers. That we can all agree on. The additional challenge is to get your sponsors to understand the importance of unbiased reviews to helping your readers (and googlers) make the best decisions for their specific needs. Certainly this helps your readership numbers, but it probably also results in greater sales of products that perform well and fewer mistaken purchases and returns of disappointing products, although it might be hard to document that last assertion objectively.

So SOS, keep up the great work (and don't wait too long to publish the key to the preamp identities).

Most illuminating!

I had dabbled with sound recording many years ago and the only "pre amps" were the ones in the recorder. I built a 4 chan' triode mixer which was not bad noisewise but the transformers I could afford (Radio Spares 1:60) did not go much past 12kHz! Then we were ALWAYS told in Tape Recorder to... Buy a Better Mic!

What a revalation then was the Behringer BCA2000! It had other, "digital" problems but the mic pres were incredible! Plenty of gain (even if the control was cramped, a common problem on much better gear) low noise, we would have killed for these 40yrs ago. They were even just about useable on my 30Ohm Reslo RB ribbons in fact it was hum pickup due to "unbalanced" wiring that was the noise limit (stick one in the garden, no problem!)
Now I understand that the Berry "Imp"is a rip of the Mackie? Well all I can say is that the two discrete input transistor + ic circuit has been around on the internet for ages, so who WAS the originator?

No, these results do not suprise me in the least. In fact I have a 35quid Wharfedale mixer that is if anything quieter than the Berry!

Dave.

I've spent almost an hour listening many times to just one of the sets.
I'm listening in a treated room and on good speakers.

After many repeated listenings, I could not hear a difference, never mind choosing a preferred one!
My hearing probably isn't as good as I hope it is, but I thought I would be able to dectect some differences- but in all honesty- I can't!

Piano sounded great though!

--------------------
Cubase, guitars.

I agree that many of the mic pre's in this example sound very similar with the piano. However when you compare Mackie pre's to API on a drum kit, there will be little guess work which one is which. When you get a acoustic guitar and compare a API to Great River or Rupert Neve pre's, you will hear a difference. They had the Listening Sessions web site that had comparisons of many mic 'pre's on guitars, bass, drums, and you clearly heard difference with different pre's. The site is no longer around though.

I used to have a Focusrite Voicemaster, and when I went to a Langevin DVC, I clearly heard better representation of the original source...so much that I sold the Voicemaster. Discrete Class A gear compared to consumer mic pre's clearly offer more detail. But once you get to high end mic pre's, the difference between clean pre's like a GML or Grace may be very very subtle. When comparing two pre's on a single source, the difference on some may be small. However you will notice a bigger difference when you record over 10 tracks using consumer pre's and compare them to 10 tracks using the higher end pre's. I also have done A/B comparisons with a Manley tube pre, to the Avalon 737 and there is a clear difference is tonality with the Manley adding more color and the Avalon being a cleaner smooth sound. In comparing the Manley Slam tube pre, it offered less color than the Manley standard pre, and offered a lot more in the high end over the Avalon737.

I have to agree. I only had my Focusrite Saffire pres for years until I invested in an SSL X-Logic channel. The difference was remarkable.

Although, the quality of the converters probably had a lot to do with that too...

Quote Glenn Bucci:

---

I agree that many of the mic pre's in this example sound very similar with the piano. However when you compare Mackie pre's to API on a drum kit, there will be little guess work which one is which.

---

I'm not so sure the difference would actually be as 'night and day' as you suggest -- provided you're not clipping the preamps. There are differences, of course, but I really do think 'expectation bias' plays a much greater part in people's impression than most people realise.

Of course, if you are clipping the preamps -- something which is quite easy to do with drums in particular -- the overload behaviour will be quite different and result in clearly different tonality.

But clearly there is a lot more milage to be covered in this kind of preamp comparison, and if we can figure out a way of generating reliably consistent snare drum hits perhaps we will return to this topic in the future and prove, or disprove, this very widely held belief.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

So when are SOS going to do an A/D converter shootout?!

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Glenn Bucci:

---

I agree that many of the mic pre's in this example sound very similar with the piano. However when you compare Mackie pre's to API on a drum kit, there will be little guess work which one is which.

---

I'm not so sure the difference would actually be as 'night and day' as you suggest -- provided you're not clipping the preamps. There are differences, of course, but I really do think 'expectation bias' plays a much greater part in people's impression than most people realise.

Of course, if you are clipping the preamps -- something which is quite easy to do with drums in particular -- the overload behaviour will be quite different and result in clearly different tonality.

hugh

---

What I have noticed when tracking drums with the API's is the fast transience response they provide which you would not get with Mackie's, or even 1073's. Hence the reason why engineers like Andy Johns likes to use API pre's on drums. So we are not just talking about the "character of the mic pre" but how it captures the signal...or how quickly it does.

I remember an article in SOS where the A/B comparison of a classical recording you made on a stage with your GML equipment and Paul did with his equipment. It was remarked that the differences with your recordings vrs his with his less expensive pre's was not as drastic as one would think. Perhaps certain instruments, and equipment make more of a difference with different pre's?

Inspiration --> composition --> arrangement --> performers/performances --> environment --> mic placement --> mic, etc... and in that order.

Remember everybody, that this was on a SOLO piano piece. Add other instruments and these differences are... NOTHING -- at least compared to 6 steps before. I do understand that as audio engineers, we have less to do with the other steps but if we focus on supporting artists during these processes then I think that we will be far better off than if we can afford Neves or APIs. IN FACT, I would go so far as to argue that messing around with different preamps and mics at the expense of previous steps has done more to DESTROY music than help. I would much rather listen to a Beethoven piano sonata performed by an experienced concert pianist in a great hall captured in just the right spot on a Candle tape recorder than most of the rip off/rushed/thrown together/financially motivated/recorded through a million dollar signal chain music that has been assaulting my senses lately.
Thank you SOS for trying to better MUSIC :-)
And all of you gear junkies - that's fine, I'm with you but the best investment you can make is listening... plus maybe lessons - LOL!!

--------------------
Just a fan of music...

Oooo! "They" are going to wriggle! Oooo! "They" are going to huff and puff!

Re levels. Of course spikey stuff like drums has to be watched. Then the common hybrid mic pre does produce rather more distortion at higher gain levels and will probably sound "rougher sooner".

Discrete "op amps" do not seem to me to offer any great advantages (and may well be worse for stability) except in terms of ultimate headroom since the supply rails can be almost as high as we like, but if pro converters stop at +24dBu is there really any point in 10-15dB more than this?

Then there is the class A debacle. Might be something to it if going class A preamp direct to converter but any kind of desk will put probably 1/2 doz class AB chips in the signal path. Do said converters use class A drive and output circuits? What of active monitors? Anything above 5 watts per speaker is going to be class AB (unless it is class D!).

And finally transient response. Did I not learn many years ago (about the time of the great TIM tizzy) that provided the system did not ring, speed was simply proportional to system bandwith? In this case almost certainly defined by the microphone.
Dave.

Quote Glenn Bucci:

---

What I have noticed when tracking drums with the API's is the fast transience response they provide which you would not get with Mackie's, or even 1073's.

---

The transformers in the 1073 certainly restrict both bandwidth and slew rate -- both affecting the transient response -- and so the 1073 does sound noticeably different to API or Mackie preamps as a result. But the differences between API and Mackie preamps are rather more subtle, with the rest of the Mackie mixer signal path compromising the quality of the preamps, which is why we used the inserts as outputs. But I don't think you'd find much difference in a transient response measurement between an API and a Mackie preamp... And plenty of hit records have been made with Mackie mixers without anyone complaining of a problem with the drum transients!

I fear we're still in the groove of the 'widely agreed' mantra here!

Quote:

---

I remember an article in SOS where the A/B comparison of a classical recording you made on a stage with your GML equipment and Paul did with his equipment. It was remarked that the differences with your recordings vrs his with his less expensive pre's was not as drastic as one would think. Perhaps certain instruments, and equipment make more of a difference with different pre's?

---

The differences were, indeed, very small, and actually could be ascribed to the small variations in mic positions as much as the different equipment. The greatest differences tended to appear at hotter signal levels, as the more expensive, elaborate, and better designed equipment revealed the advantages of its higher headroom margins.

So I would suggest again, that preamp differences are most obvious when they are driven hard, either deliberately or accidentally, and it's more about how they handle overloads when they become non-linear as much as, if not more than, any other aspect. And it's perfectly valid to take musical advantage of that kind of behaviour in appropriate circumstances. But where there is no need to 'drive' the preamp, perhaps preamp choice is rather less significant than many have been led to believe.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Mattyy:

---

IN FACT, I would go so far as to argue that messing around with different preamps and mics at the expense of previous steps has done more to DESTROY music than help.

---

I think I would agree with you, and your earlier point about the overwhelming importance of the earlier stages of the music change.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote mjfe2:

---

So when are SOS going to do an A/D converter shootout?!

---

Ah, no, let's go for a room shoot out!

Actually, I'm serious! There's always lots of talk about how important room acoustics are.

Would it be of use to create an article which demonstrates this? Perhaps a series of recordings of one source in a variety of rooms, miked the same way, or even miked at different distances to show how the room has more effect. Maybe start with an untreated room and record differences as the room gets incrementally treated (no doubt a supplier of acoustic treatment would sponsor this and I'm sure there would be a willing guinea pig who would like their room treated).

Some of my favourite recordings have been close miked in large beautiful acoustics, not something that can be done at home, and different to dry studio plus reverb.

I don't have time to review the samples, but this is an interesting read and confirms something I long suspected.

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

As a Focusrite Liquid Channel owner I'm well used to the joy of comparing subtleties between pre-amp emulations - but I actually have to come up with a permanent recording decision when I go through the process!

I'm going to hold my hand up and say that I expected the differences to be much greater, given the wide spread of pre's in the test (and the difference between my LC's emulations are typically less subtle!). And I'm going to also say that there are some examples here that I prefer to the others, but I doubt it has much to do with cost. If was hearing a vocalist, as opposed to a piano, through the same range of pre's I'd likely come up with a different favourite.

So as far as giving the lie to those who verbally trash one perfectly decent pre over another I'd say job done, SOS! It doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer one over another on any given day, but the choice would be based on:

a) what I hear in that particular situation on that day
b) whether one pre offers me something over another (e.g. the SSL's VHD control, for instance)

Sometimes my choice would be based on noise levels, or available gain. Not many pre's have the ultra-low noise-floor of my SSL Superanalogue Channels, and this may be important for a harp, or an acoustic guitar, but for some signals I care less about low-noise and more about character. Some may turn their noses up at my TLA EQ's mic pre's, but I get some very good close-mic'd drums sounds through them that arrive all the better for having hit a valve or two on the way.

Anyway, to the test...

Brauner:
I liked G/H for their smooth character, E for its warm lows and C for its detail. If I had to choose a favourite it would be E.

MKH:
I liked F for it's overall balance of lows/highs and G for its detail. B seemed to have more depth and ambience. On this day I'd choose F for the cut.

Royer:
(Lordy, I want one of these mic's!)
D had a richness I liked. H had warmer lows. C seemed to capture a delicacy I liked. A, F and G had a slight 'edge' that, although I wouldn't notice in isolation, in comparison with the others here I found less appealing. Today I'd choose C.

Fascinating exercise - let's do more of these!

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

Would it be of use to create an article which demonstrates this? Perhaps a series of recordings of one source in a variety of rooms, miked the same way, or even miked at different distances to show how the room has more effect. Maybe start with an untreated room and record differences as the room gets incrementally treated (no doubt a supplier of acoustic treatment would sponsor this and I'm sure there would be a willing guinea pig who would like their room treated).

---

I'm prepared to selflessly volunteer my room!

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote:

---

Ah, no, let's go for a room shoot out!

---

Fantastic idea!

At least that would be a clear (probably quite dramatic) demonstration...

Then we could point people to it when they show up on a forum & ask "I've got all this money burning a hole in my pocket, what should I spend it on first?", before they get caught in the frustrating vortex of misinformation & pointless expense.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/coldroom-studio

Thanks for a really good and well executed test! I love this kind of stuff.

I also found the differences between preamps really small. I would recommend using a ABX software (like http://emptymusic.com/software/ABXer.html) for testing if you really can tell two preamps apart. I couldn't

Another vote here for a room shoot-out... we even have a volunteer - thanks Elf.

It's clear from posts here that people are often debating replacing monitors or other gear when they're working in untreated rooms.

[I know there's a whole sub-discussion about multi-purpose rooms, but that needn't be the "can't do it" argument that's sometimes raised. I won't take that any further here!]

I worked for far too long in untreated rooms until circumstances dictated that I had to do something. Even the modest treatment I've used has been a revelation...

So, yes... as near as possible record and mix identical pieces with identical instruments, amps mics, monitors etc in a good room and an untreated one. Sales of Rockwool and pre-assembled panels will rocket!

Quote Mike Stranks:

---

Even the modest treatment I've used has been a revelation...

---

And that's what we have found time and time again with the Studio SOS features. What we generally do in most of those is incredibly simple and inexpensive, and usually only involves the absolutely most basic treatment of early reflections. Yet without fail everyone has been able to hear significant improvements in clarity, definition and stereo imaging. Most volunteer the opinion that it's like they've just got new, much more expensive monitors becuase they can now hear so muich more of what the monitors have been trying to tell them all along!

Sorting out troublesome bass modes can be difficult and costly, and that's where a good acoustician comes in. But dealing with early reflections that destroy midrange clarity and imaging is trivially simple to do and, as you say Mike, it can be a revelation.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Sorting out troublesome bass modes can be difficult and costly, and that's where a good acoustician comes in.

---

Not necessarily.

I was happy with the treatment of my 8'6" cube room, with lots of RW5.

I do not doubt that someone experienced would have treated the room in less time and perhaps made the trapping more efficient.

However, how much would they want to do this?

and yeah....

The difference between a treated and untreated room makes the perceived differences in preamp appear very small indeed, also moving the mic makes more difference than using a different pre amp.

So, regarding the preamp shootout, what is the takeaway here? In light of many people (myself included) hearing very little difference, how does one go about buying a preamp? Or choosing a particular preamp for a particular source? Is there justification for spending 4 digits for a single channel? Are there really things to be considered beyond quality of parts and construction, as well technical specs (self-noise, etc)?

I feel like my world has been flipped upside down.

Quote Nolum:

---

So, regarding the preamp shootout, what is the takeaway here?

---

I think the take-away is that there really isn't as much difference as many people think between the sound character of decent preamp designs -- provided that they are used within their designed limits (ie, not overdriven).

And what that means is that for general recording duties, where the gain structure is optimised so that the signal isn't pushing the headroom margins, it really doesn't make a lot of difference which preamp you use. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, because there is... but changing the mic or repositioning the mic will result in a much more significant change of character.

I certainly wouldn't hold off recording my drum solo until I could afford an API...

Quote:

---

In light of many people (myself included) hearing very little difference, how does one go about buying a preamp?

---

Buy something that is as well designed and well built as your budget can afford, with the facilities you require. There are plenty to choose from. But above all, buy what you need, not what an internet forum says you absolutely must have for any given source!

Quote:

---

Or choosing a particular preamp for a particular source?

---

This isn't something I've ever subscribed to, so I can't help... I will admit that Ido sometimes choose to use transformer-coupled preamps on sources where I want a slightly softer, thicker sound (depending on what the mic is giving me). But in practice I am quite happy to use whatever preamp comes to hand, and concentrate on positioning the mic to get the sound I want. Of course, I tend to record classical acoustic sources with lots of headroom specifically to avoid overdriving the preamp -- for me it's all about transparency, not colour.

Quote:

---

Is there justification for spending 4 digits for a single channel?

---

Gear lust means that if you want something, you'll find a way of justifying it whatever the cost! But personally, I'd struggle to justify spending four figures for a single channel... Some have tempted me -- like the Grace M201 -- but I restrained myself! The Grace Design 201 is a beuatifully constructed preamp that has superb engineering inside and out, sounds fabulous and and is a joyous thing to use... but I'm quite happy with my ISA428, GML8304, SSL Xlogic VHD, and SADiE slither preamps which all get the job done very nicely thank you! I have also made very high quality recordings using the preamps in a Mackie 1402VLZ mixer, a little Sound Devices two channel battery-powered mic pre, and a Yamaha DM1000 mixer...

Quote:

---

Are there really things to be considered beyond quality of parts and construction, as well technical specs (self-noise, etc)?

---

It's really all about the design -- electronic and ergonomic -- the quality of the components and construction, the facilities, and the tech specs, of course -- and then how it interfaces with your mics. Ribbons and dynamics generally like much higher input impedances, for example. But if you are into running things hot for effect, then you really have to listen to how the preamp reacts becuase that's wehen the really obvious differences start to appear.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

The Grace Design 201 is a beuatifully constructed preamp that has superb engineering inside and out, sounds fabulous and and is a joyous thing to use... but I'm quite happy with my ISA428, GML8304, SSL Xlogic VHD, and SADiE slither preamps which all get the job done very nicely thank you! I have also made very high quality recordings using the preamps in a Mackie 1402VLZ mixer, a little Sound Devices two channel battery-powered mic pre, and a Yamaha DM1000 mixer...

---

Do I still detect a trace of denial? :-)

"Sounds fabulous"? More fabulous than the work-a-day preamps you mentioned? You mean there IS a noticable difference...?

Cue lots of ebay auctions for no longer needed expensive pre amps.

I've got my wonga ready!

Alright - in the spirit of the "game":
Royer: I liked D and G with the D seeming to have more detail and the G being a little clearer.
Sennheisers: I liked D, it seemed to be a bit more natural than the rest for me.
Brauners: I liked E and H with E seeming to have more depth/evenness and H having just a little more clarity or separation.

To be honest, I didn't like the Brauners on this instrument. The sound seemed slightly muffled to me. Bear in mind that I am listening to these samples under less than perfect conditions to say the least. I almost want for you to tell me that there is no difference in the preamps and that this was all a hoax to "egg all of our faces" because, as a less than professional, I had a hard time distinguishing all of the samples but it was fun and if I find out that there was any consistency in my answers then I'll definitely audition my preferred preamp!
Thanks again and PLEASE keep these coming!!! Audio fidelity is pretty much the only thing that matters to me when making these decisions.
Cheers.

--------------------
Just a fan of music...

One small doubt I have about this comparison is that I suspect that the VLZ pre-amps may not be entirely typical of the 'budget mixer' genre. I'd suggest that they are an unusually good preamp in that category.

So it could be a little misleading to go from this test to wider generalisation that budget mixer preamps are all at this level?

Having said that I applaud the test and the thought and work that has gone into it.
I'm still trying to find time to listen carefully to all of the samples though...

--------------------
I've never liked a solo violin, you need at least five for a proper fire.

Quote Nolum:

---

So, regarding the preamp shootout, what is the takeaway here? In light of many people (myself included) hearing very little difference, how does one go about buying a preamp?

---

For me personally, I think that what this comparison has demonstrated is that you can take a decent level of sound quality almost for granted in modern gear, which means that I would tend to choose more on the strength of what features are offered. For example, to me, having stepped or digital gain controls is a massive plus, especially for stereo recording. I don't want the hassle and frustration of trying to match gains across two channels using Mackie trim pots unless I have to! And again, for my own use a decent amount of clean gain for ribbon mics is high on the list.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Do I still detect a trace of denial? :-)

---

Quite possibly! I've never denied that there are differences... I just don't think the differences are as significant as many would have us believe. And this SOS comparison would seem to confirm that.

Quote:

---

"Sounds fabulous"? More fabulous than the work-a-day preamps you mentioned? You mean there IS a noticable difference...?

---

I think I said the M201 sounded sublime with a clean and neutral sound -- and I'd stand by that. other preamps are sublimely clean and neutral too -- I have several... I also said it had a huge headroom and that is where high end preamps often stand apart from the less costly wannabes.

The thing with the Grace though, is that you really feel you know where the mopney has ben spent. It feels as good to use as it sounds. If you appreciate good engineering, it's all there in the Grace Design m201...but at a cost. If I had oodles of money then I'd love to own a rack of Grace preamps... but I can get the same quality of sound with lots of others that are less expensive, and perhaps not quite as rewarding to use at a tactile level.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote RhinoTime:

---

I suspect that the VLZ pre-amps may not be entirely typical of the 'budget mixer' genre. I'd suggest that they are an unusually good preamp in that category.

---

The second generation VLZ-pro preamps were certainly ahead of the game for budget consoles when they were first introduced a good few years ago, but I think many of the other reputable budget consoles have more or less caught up now. Most budget mixer preamps are surprisingly good these days, and we would have killed for that level of performance 30 years ago, where even fully professional consoles often sounded pretty grim in comparison! It's often the rest of the budget mixer circuitry that lets the side down, with limited headroom and other issues.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Hmmm. Talking about room shootouts. I have one that would challenge a saint.

3M x 4M
Bay window on the 3M
Chimney breast on the 4M
Glass window opposite the bay (going to adjacent room)
Plasterboard paneling opposite the chimney breast, with something inside that rattles
Bouncy wooden floor (cellar underneath).

I suspect that when I eventually get round to it, I'll abandon this and use the dining room instead

That is of course after I've finished the kitchen

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Quote RhinoTime:

---

One small doubt I have about this comparison is that I suspect that the VLZ pre-amps may not be entirely typical of the 'budget mixer' genre. I'd suggest that they are an unusually good preamp in that category.

---

I think you are right. When I studied sound engineering way back in 1998 a classmate did some measurements on mic preamps and found out that the VLZs had lower noise and THD than the preamps in the school's SSL desk.

"I think the take-away is that there really isn't as much difference as many people think between the sound character of decent preamp designs -- provided that they are used within their designed limits (ie, not overdriven)."

Hugh, I recall an amplifier manufacturer saying much the same thing many years ago and even putting his money where his mouth was!

AFAIK no one proved him wrong and collected the cash but people are still talking bllx about superb but different power amps decades later!

I am sure the same will obtain with mic pres. Extremely interesting and WELL worth doing tho it was I suspect the exercise will sink into obscurity and like Darwin the naysayers will still be there!

There is at least one advantage to buying a top range pre..Reliability. I have never read a post in SoS or any other forum of a Grace, AD or any other such make going wrong and I am pretty sure if people paid that sort of money and one popped they would shout!

Dave.

Quote ef37a:

---

There is at least one advantage to buying a top range pre..Reliability. I have never read a post in SoS or any other forum of a Grace, AD or any other such make going wrong and I am pretty sure if people paid that sort of money and one popped they would shout!

---

Shout!

One of my SSL Superanalogue Channels failed twice in the space of a year. It cost me the price of a decent pre to get it fixed the first time. The second time (and it looked like the same fault to me) SSL were a bit sniffy about fixing it under warranty, but after a bit of horse trading we arrived at a mutually agreeable solution.

I dont regret getting these pre's now, but the cost and repairs have made me less likely to invest that kind of money again.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

but I think many of the other reputable budget consoles have more or less caught up now.

---

I'd accept that, but the word 'reputable' in it is kind of what I'm driving at.
For someone who comes along and reads the comparison stuff how do they know which side of the reputable line a particular maker/model sits on.

I'm assuming that you took the vlz signals from the direct outs on the mixer? And that's another thing that maybe needs to be brought out, a reputable mixer with a direct out will do better than one that forces you to use the rest of the mixer signal chain. How much better?

--------------------
I've never liked a solo violin, you need at least five for a proper fire.

Yes, we took the Mackie output from the insert point, and routed via an ART transformers box to balance and isolate the output.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote RhinoTime:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

but I think many of the other reputable budget consoles have more or less caught up now.

---

I'd accept that, but the word 'reputable' in it is kind of what I'm driving at.
For someone who comes along and reads the comparison stuff how do they know which side of the reputable line a particular maker/model sits on.

I'm assuming that you took the vlz signals from the direct outs on the mixer? And that's another thing that maybe needs to be brought out, a reputable mixer with a direct out will do better than one that forces you to use the rest of the mixer signal chain. How much better?

---

That last might be food for the next test! It is recieved wisdom that a signal chain should be as short and simple as possible. But in fact how many NE5532's can be daisy chained before the result can be told from the original source on a double blind A/B test. I suspect the number of stages needed would be impracticably large.

Dave.

So this discussion would suggest that we can generalize these findings to a degree, and will likely find a reasonably quiet and uncolored good quality analog mixer mic preamp like a MixWiz or Zed to be adequate for most vocal or instrument recordings and most recording mics. In addition this suggests that the built-in preamps in many of the better quality audio interfaces will be fine for most of these uses as well. Would anyone take issue with, or want to qualify, these generalizations?

Quote Jorge:

---

So this discussion would suggest that we can generalize these findings to a degree, and will likely find a reasonably quiet and uncolored good quality analog mixer mic preamp like a MixWiz or Zed to be adequate for most vocal or instrument recordings and most recording mics. In addition this suggests that the built-in preamps in many of the better quality audio interfaces will be fine for most of these uses as well. Would anyone take issue with, or want to qualify, these generalizations?

---

Not at all Jorge! "Our" (son and I) rig for a long time was a Behringer Xenyx 802 feeding a 2496. Using Sontronics STC-2, AKG P150s and latterly an SM57 he made recordings he was happy with of amplified and acoustic guitar. I then upgraded to a ZED10 and that is undoubtably a better piece of kit, but! In all honesty, although the mic pre has a wee bit more gain in hand the recordings he makes of acoustic G and with the 57 are not noticeable better in terms of noise (in fact the locale limits my noise floor!)or any other quality we can discern. One big advantage of the 10 is the HP filter on each channel (and yet how few "booteek" £xxxx mic pres provide these!).

Of course my noise floor is only just adequate and then only in the wee smalls. Had I a 30dBspl studio things MIGHT be different?

Dave.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Most budget mixer preamps are surprisingly good these days, and we would have killed for that level of performance 30 years ago, where even fully professional consoles often sounded pretty grim in comparison!

---

And I wonder if this is one of the main reasons for the mic preamp myth. Originally, the idea of using separate mic preamps instead of the console preamps was intended to overcome the limits of console mic preamps. I've owned a couple of consoles from the early/mid 80s where the mic preamps were obviously noisy and coloured. I managed to produce some interesting recordings on them but they would have been obviously improved if I had access to decent mic preamps.

Once low noise input transistors became affordable, the quality of preamps on affordable consoles improved dramatically and effectively removed the need for additional preamps - but old school engineers carried on using them and the marketing machine went into overdrive.

I can certainly understand the need for preamps with eq built in where the eq is a big part of the sound. There are also plenty of people nowadays who don't use a console so they will also need separate preamps. As Hugh says, some consoles have shortcomings in later stages so some engineers will try to avoid the console all together.

I can't help thinking that this is similar to the summing amp myth that was hopefully debunked a little while ago.

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Quote James Perrett:

---

I can't help thinking that this is similar to the summing amp myth that was hopefully debunked a little while ago.

---

Head for another forum and you'll see that no matter how much a myth is systematically and methodically de-bunked some people just *want* to believe and won't take any evidence as irrefutable. Even perfect null tests are dismissed under those circumstances.

After all, it's better to believe in wichcraft than to accept that you can't make a decent recording, isn't it?

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

I have not compared newer consumer mic pre's to all discrete mic pre's in my studio in over 5 years. However I have spoken to mic pre designers in the past about not having cheap chips in their gear. Not only that but having higher end transformer coupled balanced and direct humongous metalized film MultiCaps capacitor coupled unbalanced outputs which help provide better spec's.

I WANT TO CHALLENGE EVERYONE TO TAKE THEIR OWN TEST. I want you to record a vocalist with a condenser microphone of at least the quality of a AT 4033. Make sure the level into your DAW in the same and the distance between the vocalist is the same. Record with a consumer mic pre (Behringer, Mackie, Presonus, etc.) and then borrow a higher end pre (Neve, Manley, Pendulum, Avalon, SSL, etc) and do a A/B. Carefully listen to the lows, then mid's, and then the high's. What ever difference you hear, just think of adding that difference to every track on a song. After having over 20 tracks with the higher end mic pre. the difference on a entire song will be a lot more noticeable than one track. I have done this test multiple times in my studio, and I have always found the higher end mic pre's to deliver more information than the consumer pre's. Granted cleaner pre's will sound different than colored pre's, but the overall sound quality of higher end pre's with better spec's and higher end components still does make a difference. Have consumer pre's improved over the years.....yes. The question only you can answer is, is the difference enough to justify the cost of the higher end pre. There is no right or wrong answer. The answer is what do YOU think and does the cost for YOU justify the cost.

One experiment I did was with the Focusrite Voicemaster, Mindprint DTC, Focusrite ISA 220 and the Langevin DVC (Manley Labs). I clearly heard a difference between all these mic pre's, and the Langevin DVC to my ears was clearly the best sounding pre. So for me, the cost of the higher end mic pre was clearly well worth it. I personally wanted to buy the Mindprint after reading Hugh's review, but just singing into each mic pre and playing them back clearly allowed me to hear the difference. For your ears and taste perhaps the difference is not justified, and that is fine. But when you learn to hear the subtle differences and again think about multiplying the difference on every track of your song, that differences is magnified.

Quote Glenn Bucci:

---

...just think of adding that difference to every track on a song.

---

...except that it won't be the same difference will it? And it probably won't be anything like as many as twenty tracks either -- at least not for most home musicians.

The use of different mics with the same preamp will alter the tonal signature of the combination quite radically, and most people will use two different mics for vocals and guitar etc, so the 'stacking' concept is already looking dubious.

And for most home recording sessions we're looking at a main vocal, possibly a couple of backing vocals, a couple of guitar parts (acoustic/electric) and maybe some hand percussion, but that's about it as far as live recording is concerned. Pretty much everything else will be samples, virtual instruments or DIs. So ten tracks tops, and often six or less.

I agree completely that the better designed preamps sound better -- and the bottom end is a particular area where differences become more obvious -- but we really are talking pretty stubtle improvements here. Worth having if you can afford it, obviously, but not worth worrying about excessively because it certainly won't affect record sales!

In days of old, long before samples and virtual instruments, everything was recorded live, and everything went through the same console preamps. Some sounded better than others, but the hit records still emerged quite happily, despite excessive 'stacking'. I think the perspective has been distorted quite considerably over the years because of changing working styles and marketing BS, and sometimes it's worth just stepping back for a moment and re-evaluating just what is critically important and what are 'nice to have luxuries' that quickly get lost in the noise.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Totes +1.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Glenn Bucci:

---

...just think of adding that difference to every track on a song.

---

In days of old, long before samples and virtual instruments, everything was recorded live, and everything went through the same console preamps. Some sounded better than others, but the hit records still emerged quite happily, despite excessive 'stacking'.
hugh

---

Us home engineers have to remember, its all about the song and the performance. Even poorly recorded Jango Reinhardt, and Robert Johnson recordings are still loved by many today. No one says, oh how I wish he had a U47 through a Neve mic pre. They just love the music.

Quote Glenn Bucci:

---

I WANT TO CHALLENGE EVERYONE TO TAKE THEIR OWN TEST. I want you to record a vocalist with a condenser microphone of at least the quality of a AT 4033. Make sure the level into your DAW in the same and the distance between the vocalist is the same. Record with a consumer mic pre (Behringer, Mackie, Presonus, etc.) and then borrow a higher end pre (Neve, Manley, Pendulum, Avalon, SSL, etc) and do a A/B.

---

Yes... but be sure to accurately match the levels, and use an ABX program as was suggested by a previous poster, so that you are doing the tests blind. Because what our experiences in doing these tests show is that the effect of bias (the psychological expectation that something will sound a certain way because of the name on the box) is much greater than we had expected.