Preamps = Yes?

[Adam!]

Yeah, there are some other threads about preamps, but they're all from like 2007 and I didn't feel like necromancing them.

Recently I got a chance to get at the guts of some pro mixes, and I've been completely impressed by the tone of the solo'd lead vocals: present without being harsh, full sounding without being overly bassy. For the life of me I cannot duplicate this sound. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the vocalist, but I'm also wondering if the pre-amp is a big part of the equation? Dogma says that, on vocals, the pre-amp is nearly as important as the mic: I've always dismissed this and just gone straight into my audio interface (in this case, a Firebox), thinking I could EQ-in any tonal improvements that having a separate pre would have given me. However, in the past I've dismissed a few other pieces of recording dogma ("don't mix on headphones", "treat your room") which later turned out to be sage advice, so I'm starting to rethink my position.

So, to Ken and any of the other folks out there who know something about them, what the heck kind of pre-amp should I be using? How does one even judge pre-amps... as in, how would you qualify the improvement a good pre-amp would give me? For a short period of time I owned some cheap tube-y dealy, but it didn't seem to do anything but degrade the sound, so I took it back. My mic is an Audio Technical 4040, which I find clean and accurate but somewhat flavourless.

[melvin]

This is purely anecdotal, but I was recently having some tunes mastered at what is perhaps Canada's best mastering facility, and the engineer said, "These mixes sound pretty good, but I'd love to hear what you could do with some decent preamps."

By "decent", he means "really expensive". For example, he loves/recommends Avalon.

The purported sonic improvements are just the sort of thing you're describing: sparkly-yet-smooth highs, rich lows, and that nice, strong presence without the harshness.

[ken]

Man, this is a tough one. I'm never sure how to impart that magical feeling of hearing a nice piece of gear in action and comparing it to other nice and not so nice pieces of gear. Also, the way that a mix comes together so much nicer and easier when you make the switch to pro quality. There really is a voodoo to it, but it is real.

Really, the best thing you can do for yourself is to find a way to try a ton of gear at once. I've been to NAMM and AES and once you sing into a dozen or so amazing mics and preamps you start to find things you like and don't like. Every preamp, mic, and combination will have different sonic qualities. Some are clean, some are colored. Some compliment and some accentuate the bad stuff.

You want to find gear that sounds musical to your ears. That work well for you in your environment. Something that adds excitement to your tracks.

You also want to find a gear seller that has a good return policy. Most high end preamp makers will allow you to test drive their gear in your studio if you ask nicely. Or maybe I've just been lucky as part of a proper studio.

This post feels really unhelpful. I can suggest a dozen excellent preamps that you may or may not have heard of. I personally have a relationship with A Designs Audio and feel they have some of the best gear out there. I have the MP2 preamp and the first time I used it I couldn't believe how easy it was to have great sounding tracks with my usual gear. Everything sounded HUGE and it was crazy easy to mix. Their more recent Pacifica preamp is also amazing. We checked out all the flavors of the API 500 series as well, and liked the P1 the best. (Frankly we beta tested a lot of these preamps, so I know them pretty well.) Which one is right for you? It is hard to say. This is why you end up with racks and racks of gear.

Adam, maybe we could chat about this sometime.

Ken

I feel like I am trying to tell you what spice to add to your stew and I have no idea what you are cooking.

[ken]

Crap. I am just remembering that there is a CD set of mic and preamp shoot outs.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3daudio_prelp.html

I hope this helps.

Ken

[Billy's Little Trip]

So, the 48V button on my FireBox isn't a pre amp? Also, my theory of running my mic into my POD clean tube (which is a pre amp) to my FireBox isn't the same thing?
By the way, it seems that I get comments like, "the vox are annoying", when I run through the POD, so I stopped doing that. I think Adam was the last to say that, so I stopped.

[Kill Me Sarah]

So, the 48V button on my FireBox isn't a pre amp?

Glad you asked that, I curious about this too. My TonePort also has that +48V button. However, if I'm not mistaken, all that's doing is adding phantom power to the microphone, whereas it seems that pre-amps add phantom power in addition to some other things such as compression and EQ, right?

Edit: Actually looking at my TonePort software, there are a few pre-amps included. I'm not sure if that's true of the FireBox or not. But it appears the major difference here then, is that I am using a software pre-amp where as these guys are talking about higher end hardware preamps.

[Märk]

BLT and KMS:
The 48V is phantom power to power condenser mics. The Firepod/box has built-in preamps on all XLR inputs. As far as I know, a mic (or any other) preamp does not add compression or EQ, it's simply gain. Like a step-up transformer.

[Hoblit]

So, the 48V button on my FireBox isn't a pre amp? Also, my theory of running my mic into my POD clean tube (which is a pre amp) to my FireBox isn't the same thing?
By the way, it seems that I get comments like, "the vox are annoying", when I run through the POD, so I stopped doing that. I think Adam was the last to say that, so I stopped.

I run my vocals through my POD using the tube pre-amp setting with compression being the only effect. (SOMETIMES I use the reverb if I'm being fast but lazy)

You just have to be real picky with the EQ

EDIT: I realized after I posted that the POD is the last in the chain and that I do have a Trim/pre-amp and a separate gain knob on the Mackie, so that would count as two cheap pre-amps I suppose. Rendering me useless.

-----------

End thread jack here.

[Billy's Little Trip]

So, the 48V button on my FireBox isn't a pre amp? Also, my theory of running my mic into my POD clean tube (which is a pre amp) to my FireBox isn't the same thing?
By the way, it seems that I get comments like, "the vox are annoying", when I run through the POD, so I stopped doing that. I think Adam was the last to say that, so I stopped.

I run my vocals through my POD using the tube pre-amp setting with compression being the only effect. (SOMETIMES I use the reverb if I'm being fast but lazy)

You just have to be real picky with the EQ

EDIT: I realized after I posted that the POD is the last in the chain and that I do have a Trim/pre-amp and a separate gain knob on the Mackie, so that would count as two cheap pre-amps I suppose. Rendering me useless.

-----------

End thread jack here.

See, I kind of liked the sound of running through the POD on clean. But I get mixed reviews. I've never run through the tube setting on the POD, I generally loop through a tube on the mix down. I really do love the POD tubes, so I'll try that on this weeks fight. Good idea, Hobz.

[Freddielove]

I have an ART tube amp which I have used a couple times, probably incorrectly and without much effect.

www.artproaudio.com/products.asp?type=79&cat=1&id=1

I know a couple other people here have mentioned them before. Though obviously not in the same league as a $2,500.00 piece of equipment, is there any advantage to using one of these, versus a direct line in? Aside from coloring the sound with a vintage tube feel that is, thanks.

[Dan-O from Five-O]

As far as I know, a mic (or any other) preamp does not add compression or EQ, it's simply gain. Like a step-up transformer.

True to a point but if you look at the Avalon that Melvin linked to earlier you'll see that it also has a compressor and a "sweepable" (which I personally love) EQ built into the same unit and can be bypassed as part of the signal chain. What that means is that you have access to those two functions outside of, as you correctly stated, the pre-amp function without having to patch in mismatched signal levels via noisy cords and such.

[Sober]

I'm split on them. To get a preamp that's worth a damn, you have to spend well over $1k (no, that $99 presonus thing isn't going to cut it). I think that for pretty much everything but high-end commercial master-level recording, you are fine without preamps. Just have a decent mic, a clean input, a solid performance, and a good mix/master.

Basically, I'd spend the money on mics, computers, guitars, and a million other things before a preamp. If I were you, Puce - I'd cut the album as is and spend the money on a marketing deal and a touring band.

[Adam!]

Practical as ever, Sober. On Ken's recommendation I checked out that CD of pre-amp shootouts, and I can honestly say that the difference between pres was subtle enough that I don't think I will make getting one a priority. Mostly the only things I noticed aside from subtle tone changes was that some of them accented or reduced the singer's sibilance, while others felt almost like they were squashing the peaks a little bit. But it wasn't night and day: in fact, I doubt if I could tell half of the pres apart. I may still try to borrow one for a day and see if it imbues some kind of ineffable magic, but without having to spend the kind of money that would make me want to believe it's working magic.

[melvin]

Thanks for reporting back, Adam! I've been thinking about springing for a nice pre, but I'm more than happy to trust your ears and save my money.

[Sober]

I think the easiest way to sum up the entire discussion on preamps is 'law of diminishing returns.' If you have the most amazing setup ever, with the best musicians, best mix engineer, and best mastering ears, then you should drop more money on preamps. Otherwise, don't.

Spend money on things that will improve your sound by 5% or more i.e. interface, mics, new drums, room acoustics before spending money on things that will improve your sound by .5% i.e. preamps, gold-plating contacts, etc.

[Project-D]

Practical as ever, Sober. On Ken's recommendation I checked out that CD of pre-amp shootouts, and I can honestly say that the difference between pres was subtle enough that I don't think I will make getting one a priority.

I downloaded the guitar version of the CD, and could definitely hear the difference, like you said it wasn't night and day but some of them were enough to make them worth getting, if they were under $400, (most I liked werent', I didn't google the whole list). For what it's worth, I didn't listen on my reference speakers. I would've like to have heard with/without preamp instead of a bunch of different preamps. I think I'd get more return by buying a better mic for a given amount of money than a preamp.

[Adam!]

So, after talking smack about how I wasn't going to bother with a pre, I borrowed the MPA Gold (which is cheap enough to minimize buyers remorse) and have been messing around with it. I'd be lying if I said it didn't improve my vocals. The most noticeable improvement is in the sibilance, which sounds more natural; my presonus's pres smear the 'ess'es, making them sound like they've been poorly de-essed. More interesting is that I'm used to my vocal tracks having some offensive treble peaks that I notch out; using the separate preamp seems to remove these. The last benefit is that it seems almost like the vocal has been lightly compressed, which probably comes from me driving the Gold's tube pretty hot. Now to see how it functions as a bass DI.

I'll test how it sounds on overheads and in a mix tomorrow.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Cool Adam. It would be really cool if you can post a before and after. It's always nice seeing a comparison from someone I/we trust.

Also, off topic, but relating to your last post. What do you think of the spitfish for smoothing out essing? I've used it a few times and it seems pretty mild. but I've noticed a more annoying vcal sound of late as I've been using a full dynamic (compression, gate and peak) combo vocal VST. In fact, you even mentioned in one of my songs that the vox were good but annoying you. I'm pretty sure it was the high peaks and esses that I never tamed.

[Adam!]

Never used it. From that picture I can't really tell how it works. Some de-essers basically lowpass the esses, whereas others reject a narrow band (I prefer the latter). All a de-esser really is is a multiband compressor (or, more accurately, a split-band compressor) with some very specific settings locked in. If I use a de-esser, I put it last in my vocal chain (well, before reverb. But after EQ and compression), as I find de-essing a vocal that has been tamed by compression allows me to de-ess a little more conservatively.

[Billy's Little Trip]

I love seeing other guys FX chains. I always wonder if I'm doing things the best I can. I do experiment, but after a while it's hard to focus because I wonder off on some other damn thing.
True testing:
1. how A, B or C sounds on headphones
2. how A, B or C sounds in the car
3. how A, B or C sounds in the livingroom
how A, B or C sounds on the computer speakers
etc etc etc................you know what I mean. It's mind numbing and exhuasting.
...I f**king love it though. Music is my ambrosia.