[muzician21]

Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:59:20 -0800 (PST), muzician21
wrote:

Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

If you are unhappy with the sound, you are unlikely to find the answer
in the electronics. 99.5% of the sound you hear is to do with the
recording space. Tackle that first.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:
Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

What are you recording, in what kinds of rooms?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"muzician21" wrote in message
...

Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic choice of
mics. You can overcome those with education and experience. Do that first,
and once you have fully exploited and resolved the highly audible issues
related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their juxtapositioning, you
just might again think about your electronics.

[hank alrich]

muzician21 wrote:

Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

What are you recording?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[muzician21]

On Nov 25, 8:20*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
muzician21 wrote:
Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

What are you recording, in what kinds of rooms?
--scott


Vocals, instruments. Environment is living room or homemade sound
booth. Do you feel the room makes a difference as to choice of pre?
Just looking for specific recommendations as to what might be a step
up, what you think should obviously sound better.

[muzician21]

On Nov 25, 8:32*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic choice of
mics. You can overcome those with education and experience. Do that first,
and once you have fully exploited and resolved the highly audible issues
related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their juxtapositioning, you
just might again think about your electronics.


I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. What I'm looking for is
something you believe should obviously sound better than that VTB-1,
going from the basis that I'm not unhappy with the results now and the
reality that I won't be working in a treated room in the near future.

[hank alrich]

muzician21 wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic choice of
mics. You can overcome those with education and experience. Do that first,
and once you have fully exploited and resolved the highly audible issues
related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their juxtapositioning, you
just might again think about your electronics.


I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. What I'm looking for is
something you believe should obviously sound better than that VTB-1,
going from the basis that I'm not unhappy with the results now and the
reality that I won't be working in a treated room in the near future.

Gordon Model 5

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[muzician21]

On Nov 25, 11:15*am, (hank alrich) wrote:
muzician21 wrote:
Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

What are you recording?


Vocals, trumpet, maybe some guitar.

[Frank Stearns]

(hank alrich) writes:

muzician21 wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic choice of
mics. You can overcome those with education and experience. Do that first,
and once you have fully exploited and resolved the highly audible issues
related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their juxtapositioning, you
just might again think about your electronics.


I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. What I'm looking for is
something you believe should obviously sound better than that VTB-1,
going from the basis that I'm not unhappy with the results now and the
reality that I won't be working in a treated room in the near future.

Gordon Model 5

Hank! Shame on you!
(Snicker, guffaw.)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[muzician21]

On Nov 26, 7:17*am, Anahata wrote:

You could buy a mic pre that costs 10 times as much (like Hank has
suggested - you asked for it, you got it), and all it will do is more
faithfully reproduce the acoustic flaws in your room.

Read Arny's answer again. It contains good advice. It's just not the kind
of answer you want to hear.


What Arny seems to be saying is "it's pointless to even consider your
gear until you have a studio room with a floating floor, bass traps,
etc. etc.have 20 years experience in a studio, have professional
studio cats performing...."

The "juxtaposing" is one performer, one mic. The spaces I have aren't
particularly reverberant. I'm not in a brick-walled basement. The
booth I have is pretty much "dead". I don't really believe in my
case, for the kind of stuff I typically record - close mic'd with a
cardioid pattern condenser, the room is playing a significant enough
role to obliterate any noticeable difference between gear that's
really great and gear that isn't. I reserve the right to be proven
wrong.

All I was asking for are suggestions of what folks consider to be
"better" gear. Not looking to take out a second mortgage to finance
it. Are you saying you feel one *has* to be in a treated studio
environment to be able to tell the difference?

[John Williamson]

muzician21 wrote:
All I was asking for are suggestions of what folks consider to be
"better" gear. Not looking to take out a second mortgage to finance
it. Are you saying you feel one *has* to be in a treated studio
environment to be able to tell the difference?

The point being made here, as in many other "What's the best xxxx?"
threads is that once you have equipment that's of a reasonable standard,
it's *much* more cost effective to put some room treatment in than spend
money on what will only be a marginal improvement. Room treatment can be
as simple as hanging a couple of duvets behind the singer, buying one of
the portable sound screens that fit behind the microphone, or as complex
as building a vocal booth. If you're still not happy with the sound,
then start looking at microphones, then look at pre-amps.

Spending a few hundred dollars on some bass traps and acoustic treatment
will make more difference than spending a couple of thousand on a new
pre-amp. It will also improve your monitoring, if you use the same room
as you do for recording. In some cases, bearing in mind that I've not
heard you sing, it can be a *lot* more cost effective to improve the
singer's microphone technique before spending any money at all.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/26/2011 12:02 AM, muzician21 wrote:

What are you recording, in what kinds of rooms?
--scott

Vocals, instruments. Environment is living room or homemade sound
booth. Do you feel the room makes a difference as to choice of pre?

Vocals and instruments in different environments doesn't
really offer much in the way of guidance for gear. However,
the choice of room will make far more difference in what you
get out of the preamp than the preamp itself.

If I was recording the symphony orchestra I'd want to use
something like a Millenia preamp which would give me as
close as possible to the sound of the microphone, If I was
recording a raunchy guitar or a rock vocal, I'd be more
inclined to use a preamp like the one you presently have,
which would add something to what was coming out of the mic
that I might want to hear and which would be difficult to
add in post-processing.

But would one be a "step up" from the other? Nope, just more
appropriate for the application.

Why are you looking for a replacement for your preamp? Are
you just thinking that you've used it for a while and it's
time to get something better? Or do you need another preamp
anyway and want some suggestions?


Just looking for specific recommendations as to what might be a step
up, what you think should obviously sound better.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/26/2011 8:31 AM, muzician21 wrote:

What Arny seems to be saying is "it's pointless to even consider your
gear until you have a studio room with a floating floor, bass traps,
etc. etc.have 20 years experience in a studio, have professional
studio cats performing...."

That's kind of an extreme interpretation. But the point is
that from what you're doing and what you know (and don't
know) about it, experimenting with preamps isn't going to be
very dramatic for you. You'll learn more and maybe improve
your recordings by spending your time and money buying a new
preamp,

I don't really believe in my
case, for the kind of stuff I typically record - close mic'd with a
cardioid pattern condenser, the room is playing a significant enough
role to obliterate any noticeable difference between gear that's
really great and gear that isn't. I reserve the right to be proven
wrong.

You're misinterpreting - It's not about one thing
obliterating the effect of another, it's about the KIND of
differences you can make by changing one thing or another.
If you're satisfied with what you have, then why bother
changing anything? But if you'd like something to be
different from what you're getting now, it would help
greatly if you understood and could express what you wanted
to change. If you have too much hum or hiss from your preamp
and this is what's wrong with your recordings, that's a good
reason to look into a replacement. But you might be able to
solve that problem with a different cable, or an isolation
transformer, or creating an organized grounding system. If
you have distortion on your recordings, maybe you're just
not using your preamp correctly.

All I was asking for are suggestions of what folks consider to be
"better" gear. Not looking to take out a second mortgage to finance
it. Are you saying you feel one *has* to be in a treated studio
environment to be able to tell the difference?

The difference in sound of preamps will be more apparent the
better control you have over what's going into the
microphone. And in fact, changing the microphone in any
environment will probably make more of an audible difference
than changing the preamp.

The point is that you're focused on replacing your preamp.
We don't even know yet if you have a problem, and what that
problem is. Changing the preamp may not change anything, or
it may change your life.

If you have a credit card, you have the means to determine
what kind of difference a different preamp will make in your
work. Decide on a budget limit, then do an on-line search of
preamps in that price range. Buy one. Try it for a week or
so. If you're not impressed, send it back. You really should
do this so you can get an idea of what kind of differences
you can expect.,

You might post your list of preamps you'd be willing to buy
here and maybe get some guidance to lean you toward or away
from one or two. But understand that you're dealing with
different people's perceptions here, not laboratory data.
But pare down the list to a few reasonable possibilities for
you.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:20=A0am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
muzician21 wrote:
Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

What are you recording, in what kinds of rooms?

Vocals, instruments. Environment is living room or homemade sound
booth. Do you feel the room makes a difference as to choice of pre?
Just looking for specific recommendations as to what might be a step
up, what you think should obviously sound better.

Well, I think at this point you'd do a lot better to put money into
your room and your microphones than your preamp.

Getting a more accurate rendition of a room problem is not going to
give you better sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:
The "juxtaposing" is one performer, one mic. The spaces I have aren't
particularly reverberant. I'm not in a brick-walled basement. The
booth I have is pretty much "dead". I don't really believe in my
case, for the kind of stuff I typically record - close mic'd with a
cardioid pattern condenser, the room is playing a significant enough
role to obliterate any noticeable difference between gear that's
really great and gear that isn't. I reserve the right to be proven
wrong.

I bet your booth isn't as dead at low frequencies as you think.

And I also bet that just about anything will sound better with a good room
behind it.

All I was asking for are suggestions of what folks consider to be
"better" gear. Not looking to take out a second mortgage to finance
it. Are you saying you feel one *has* to be in a treated studio
environment to be able to tell the difference?

Once you get out of the "cheapass" range, most of the equipment is good,
it's just all different. John Hardy makes an excellent preamp, and the
FMR RNP is pretty good too, but they are quite different.

You will get more for your dollar improving the room and the mike than
anything else in the chain (except maybe monitors).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

muzician21 wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:20=A0am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
muzician21 wrote:
Currently using a Studio Projects VTB-1 with Marshall MXL mics. Can't
say I'm unhappy with the results, just curious as to recommendations
as to what you feel would be a step up in quality in a mic pre. I.e.
that's going to yield an obviously "better" sound - as in with an A/B
comparison if I can't hear the difference I'm clearly a tone-deaf
cretin.

What are you recording, in what kinds of rooms?

Vocals, instruments. Environment is living room or homemade sound
booth. Do you feel the room makes a difference as to choice of pre?
Just looking for specific recommendations as to what might be a step
up, what you think should obviously sound better.

Well, I think at this point you'd do a lot better to put money into
your room and your microphones than your preamp.

Getting a more accurate rendition of a room problem is not going to
give you better sound.
--scott

Bingo!

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns wrote:

(hank alrich) writes:

muzician21 wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic
choice of mics. You can overcome those with education and experience.
Do that first, and once you have fully exploited and resolved the
highly audible issues related to rooms, microphones, musicians and
their juxtapositioning, you just might again think about your
electronics.


I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. What I'm looking for is
something you believe should obviously sound better than that VTB-1,
going from the basis that I'm not unhappy with the results now and the
reality that I won't be working in a treated room in the near future.

Gordon Model 5

Hank! Shame on you!
(Snicker, guffaw.)

What can I say? It creamed the Millennia.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Anahata wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 21:09:10 -0800, muzician21 wrote:
I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. What I'm looking for is
something you believe should obviously sound better than that VTB-1,
going from the basis that I'm not unhappy with the results now and the
reality that I won't be working in a treated room in the near future.

I'm quite sure *you're* not getting what *Arny's* saying.

You could buy a mic pre that costs 10 times as much (like Hank has
suggested - you asked for it, you got it), and all it will do is more
faithfully reproduce the acoustic flaws in your room.

Read Arny's answer again. It contains good advice. It's just not the kind
of answer you want to hear.

Lots of Bingo here today. "The problem is with your receiver".

I liked Mike's idea of a better recording of a bad room. Considering
what a small shift in mic position can accomplish, and how a bad room
limits one's choices of mic placement, I'd think people would jump on
the advice to fix the recording environment before spending bigger money
on kit.

Might not get one bragging rights on Geerslutz, if that's one's goal.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

muzician21 wrote:

On Nov 26, 7:17 am, Anahata wrote:

You could buy a mic pre that costs 10 times as much (like Hank has
suggested - you asked for it, you got it), and all it will do is more
faithfully reproduce the acoustic flaws in your room.

Read Arny's answer again. It contains good advice. It's just not the kind
of answer you want to hear.


What Arny seems to be saying is "it's pointless to even consider your
gear until you have a studio room with a floating floor, bass traps,
etc. etc.have 20 years experience in a studio, have professional
studio cats performing...."

The "juxtaposing" is one performer, one mic. The spaces I have aren't
particularly reverberant. I'm not in a brick-walled basement. The
booth I have is pretty much "dead". I don't really believe in my
case, for the kind of stuff I typically record - close mic'd with a
cardioid pattern condenser, the room is playing a significant enough
role to obliterate any noticeable difference between gear that's
really great and gear that isn't. I reserve the right to be proven
wrong.

All I was asking for are suggestions of what folks consider to be
"better" gear. Not looking to take out a second mortgage to finance
it. Are you saying you feel one *has* to be in a treated studio
environment to be able to tell the difference?

Since your environment(s) require that you close mic a guitar in order
to try to exclude room sound you have little idea of what might happen
if you weren't working under that restriction.

Some of the best gutiar tracks I've gotten were via mics several feet
away from the source.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"muzician21" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 8:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic choice of
mics. You can overcome those with education and experience. Do that first,
and once you have fully exploited and resolved the highly audible issues
related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their juxtapositioning, you
just might again think about your electronics.


I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying.

Be sure.

What I'm looking for is
something you believe should obviously sound better than that VTB-1,
going from the basis that I'm not unhappy with the results now and the
reality that I won't be working in a treated room in the near future.

Silly me. I thought you wanted better-sounding recordings. What you seem to
want is bragging rights for the equipment that you own. Here's a piece of
friendly advice - nobody who matters cares about what you have, they care
about what you do with it.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
muzician21 wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic choice
of
mics. You can overcome those with education and experience. Do that
first,
and once you have fully exploited and resolved the highly audible
issues
related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their juxtapositioning,
you
just might again think about your electronics.


I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying. What I'm looking for is
something you believe should obviously sound better than that VTB-1,
going from the basis that I'm not unhappy with the results now and the
reality that I won't be working in a treated room in the near future.

Gordon Model 5

Liquid sarcasm. I love it!

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"muzician21" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 7:17 am, Anahata wrote:

You could buy a mic pre that costs 10 times as much (like Hank has
suggested - you asked for it, you got it), and all it will do is more
faithfully reproduce the acoustic flaws in your room.

Read Arny's answer again. It contains good advice. It's just not the kind
of answer you want to hear.


What Arny seems to be saying is "it's pointless to even consider your
gear until you have a studio room with a floating floor, bass traps,
etc. etc.have 20 years experience in a studio, have professional
studio cats performing...."

If that's what you have to tell yourself to get through the day, so be it!

Of course I said no such thing. Even though if I said it, it would be true.
The point is that you don't have to reach that far to make a clearly audible
improvement.

The "juxtaposing" is one performer, one mic. The spaces I have aren't
particularly reverberant. I'm not in a brick-walled basement. The
booth I have is pretty much "dead". I don't really believe in my
case, for the kind of stuff I typically record - close mic'd with a
cardioid pattern condenser, the room is playing a significant enough
role to obliterate any noticeable difference between gear that's
really great and gear that isn't. I reserve the right to be proven
wrong.

Try a number of other rooms, and listen to what happens. Try more mics, more
channels.

Try a number of other micing techniques in your room, and listen to what
happens.

I utterly guarantee you that anything you try along those lines will sound
at least 10 times more different than what a better mic preamp is likely to
do for you.

[muzician21]

On Nov 26, 9:15*am, Mike Rivers wrote:

Why are you looking for a replacement for your preamp? Are
you just thinking that you've used it for a while and it's
time to get something better? Or do you need another preamp
anyway and want some suggestions?



Not necessarily a replacement. More curiosity. I saw a lot of good
reviews and got an excellent deal on a couple as B-stock from PMI
Audio with full warranty. Tried one, liked it, got another one even
less expensive. But who knows, if I hear something that sounds clearly
superior for a price I can live with, maybe I'd change. Or maybe these
VTB-1's will meet my needs forever.

[muzician21]

On Nov 26, 11:31*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Silly me. I thought you wanted better-sounding recordings.


No, not silly, you had it right the first time.


What you seem to want is bragging rights for the equipment that
you own.


Had I said "What's the most expensive mic-pre that everyone is going
to recognize the name of..." there might be some basis to your
assertion. However I didn't and there isn't.

My initial inquiry was simply to hear some names of pre's that might
considered a genuine step up, not just more expensive, not a lot more
expensive would be great. Out of an approximately 26 post thread so
far I've seen two names of preamps.

[hank alrich]

muzician21 wrote:

On Nov 26, 9:15 am, Mike Rivers wrote:

Why are you looking for a replacement for your preamp? Are
you just thinking that you've used it for a while and it's
time to get something better? Or do you need another preamp
anyway and want some suggestions?



Not necessarily a replacement. More curiosity. I saw a lot of good
reviews and got an excellent deal on a couple as B-stock from PMI
Audio with full warranty. Tried one, liked it, got another one even
less expensive. But who knows, if I hear something that sounds clearly
superior for a price I can live with, maybe I'd change. Or maybe these
VTB-1's will meet my needs forever.

Prior to buying gear that might be better than what I have, I'd want to
make sure I'd dealt with my monitoring rig and listening environment. If
that's not taken care of, I could miss a lot of detail from any kind of
audio chain.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:59:14 -0800 (PST), muzician21
wrote:

On Nov 26, 11:31*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Silly me. I thought you wanted better-sounding recordings.


No, not silly, you had it right the first time.


What you seem to want is bragging rights for the equipment that
you own.


Had I said "What's the most expensive mic-pre that everyone is going
to recognize the name of..." there might be some basis to your
assertion. However I didn't and there isn't.

My initial inquiry was simply to hear some names of pre's that might
considered a genuine step up, not just more expensive, not a lot more
expensive would be great. Out of an approximately 26 post thread so
far I've seen two names of preamps.

There is a good reason (or rather probably no good reason for even two
names). Electronics has by now reached a state of essential perfection
as far as sound reproduction is concerned. If you are looking for
better quality recordings - and assuming the performance you give is
perfect - then your priorities a

99% the room
1% the microphone (its imperfections can largely be eq'd out later)

That is the way you need to tackle the problem.

d

[Anahata]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:59:14 -0800, muzician21 wrote:

My initial inquiry was simply to hear some names of pre's that might
considered a genuine step up.

The point is that differences between mic pres, especially when used with
a condenser mic, are very subtle.

Therefore a mic pre might not be the best candidate for "A genuine step
up". Assuming a finite budget, it's not the best way to spend your money.

Grace, Millennia and Hardy are the names that usually come up here as
really good for all sorts of purposes, and the FMR RNP for excellent
value. I have DAV (designed and hand build by ex-Decca engineer Mick
Hinton) but they are hard to get outside the UK. But the money spent on
any of those still might be better spent on a different mic, if you get a
chance to audition different mics in your chosen recording room on the
voices and instruments you intend to record with them. A Schoeps MK41
with its hypercardioid pattern and very flat off axis response might
better reject your room sound and allow you to place the mic a little
further away from the source and thus get a better sound, but only if you
can hear that it does genuinely sound better. The same money or less
spent on something like a couple of wideband sound absorbing panels or
bass traps gives you the same kind of improvement or better, for any mic.
All of those will make more difference than any preamplifier.

Also (it's been mentioned before) money spent on monitors will also make
far more difference, and if you are mixing in the same room, acoustic
treatment helps twice,

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"muzician21" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 11:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

My initial inquiry was simply to hear some names of pre's that might
considered a genuine step up, not just more expensive, not a lot more
expensive would be great.

You are looking for the holy grail. The holy grail is a preamp that improves
sound quality more than all of the other things that are more important,
most if not all of which have been listed.

Your desire to avoid the obvious has made a liar out of you. You posted:

"What Arny seems to be saying is "it's pointless to even consider your
gear until you have a studio room with a floating floor, bass traps,
etc. etc.have 20 years experience in a studio, have professional
studio cats performing...."

I said no such thing, and nothing I said could be reasonably construed to
mean such a thing. You intentially created and posted a falsehood and
attributed it to me. Why go to such extremes?

Out of an approximately 26 post thread so far I've seen two names of
preamps.

I know that one mention was for sure was pure liquid sarcasm.

This is getting silly - haven't you figured out the truth, yet?

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"muzician21" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 11:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

My initial inquiry was simply to hear some names of pre's that might
considered a genuine step up, not just more expensive, not a lot more
expensive would be great.

You are looking for the holy grail. The holy grail is a preamp that improves
sound quality more than all of the other things that are more important,
most if not all of which have been listed.

Your desire to avoid the obvious has made a liar out of you. You posted:

"What Arny seems to be saying is "it's pointless to even consider your
gear until you have a studio room with a floating floor, bass traps,
etc. etc.have 20 years experience in a studio, have professional
studio cats performing...."

I said no such thing, and nothing I said could be reasonably construed to
mean such a thing. You intentially created and posted a falsehood and
attributed it to me. Why go to such extremes?

Out of an approximately 26 post thread so far I've seen two names of
preamps.

I know that one mention was for sure was pure liquid sarcasm.

Although if he _does_ try that one and hears no difference, we're right
back to listening room and monitoring system.

This is getting silly - haven't you figured out the truth, yet?

Ever since I found rec.audio.pro, people have been asking questions to
which they do not want the answers. Keeerraapppp, with minute
differences in presentation, on the present issue we have broad
consensus across a range of posters spread over various continents, who
represent a body of collective knowledge gathered both academically and
empirically, and the OP still resists the message.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[muzician21]

On Nov 27, 6:42 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You are looking for the holy grail. The holy grail is a preamp that improves
sound quality more than all of the other things that are more important,
most if not all of which have been listed.


No, not looking for anything holy, just exploring a curiosity. While
the various elements of the recording environment merit consideration,
I was just asking for some suggestions for gear. I don't have an
optimal recording or monitoring environment, but honestly believe I
have an acute enough ear to detect differences with the current setup
I have. It might be that I decide that what I have compares favorably
to gear that's a lot more expensive.


Your desire to avoid the obvious has made a liar out of you.


??...?


You posted:

"What Arny seems to be saying is "it's pointless to even consider your
gear until you have a studio room with a floating floor, bass traps,
etc. etc.have 20 years experience in a studio, have professional
studio cats performing...."

I said no such thing, and nothing I said could be reasonably construed to
mean such a thing. You intentially created and posted a falsehood and
attributed it to me. Why go to such extremes?


I was engaging in mild hyperbole but only mild. But since you insist
on making a point of it, here's what you said in response to "what
preamp do you suggest?" and why I said that.

"...If you are *that* much of a tone deaf cretin, then there are
probably
massive things wrong with your usage and even perhaps your basic
choice of
mics..."


First, it's unclear to me that you even got what I was saying. I
didn't say "I feel like I can't tell", what I was getting at was
what's a pre that's going to make such a distinct and obvious
difference that someone would *have* to be tone deaf to not be able to
tell, less than optimal room or no. I'm a longtime musician, I have
very acute hearing, I can hear subtleties.


"...Do that first,
and once you have fully exploited and resolved the highly audible
issues
related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their juxtapositioning,
you
just might again think about your electronics...."


I.e. you set up all these preconditions without which it's pointless
to even think about the gear. Again - "once you have FULLY EXPLOITED
AND RESOLVED THE HIGHLY AUDIBLE ISSUES..." - your words.


"Fully exploited"? So until I have a treated room, Marshall MXL Tube
mic or $5 Walmart electret computer mic, I won't be able to tell
anything.

I have reason to believe this isn't correct.


Out of an approximately 26 post thread so far I've seen two names of
preamps.

I know that one mention was for sure was pure liquid sarcasm.


I got that he was trying to throw out something fairly pricey to be a
smartass but guess what, I looked it up. Who knows, I might just
"borrow" one from the world of commerce just for grins and see what
something 10x the price sounds like in comparison.


This is getting silly - haven't you figured out the truth, yet?


Yes, you get testy easy and are quick to assume certain things, which
is probably why I've seen you at the center of numerous squabbles on
this forum. But all that aside, I do appreciate the useful parts of
your input.

[Frank Stearns]

muzician21 writes:

On Nov 27, 6:42 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You are looking for the holy grail. The holy grail is a preamp that improves
sound quality more than all of the other things that are more important,
most if not all of which have been listed.


No, not looking for anything holy, just exploring a curiosity. While
the various elements of the recording environment merit consideration,
I was just asking for some suggestions for gear. I don't have an
optimal recording or monitoring environment, but honestly believe I
have an acute enough ear to detect differences with the current setup
I have. It might be that I decide that what I have compares favorably
to gear that's a lot more expensive.


While folks have made a number of good suggestions, doing something at the very
beginning, such as a good preamp, might be worth considering:

1. If you're overdubbing quite a bit using the same 1 or 2 quality channels each
time, the overall sonic improvment when, say, 15-20 such overdub channels are
combined is more noticeable than one might think.

2. If the thing at the front of the chain is uber clean, such as a mic pre where the
most gain is likely to occur, subsequent mediocre elements might not be quite as
apparent as they do their individual damage -- you're not further distorting
a larger amount of existing distortion.

Said another way:

- if you assume some final, fixed threshold of audibility of audio nastiness at
the very end of the entire record/mix/home playback process;

and

- some fixed number of degrading steps to get there, each effectively multiplying
the crud from the previous step (not just adding);

then:

the early step -- the mic pre -- might be worth having as good as is practical,
because at the end of that stair-step up toward that crud being audible, crud added
during that first step was very, very small. None of the subsequent "crudifying"
steps were ever as large as they might have otherwise been.

(For example, .01% THD distortion probably isn't any more audible than .001% in any
ONE stage, but it then takes fewer mangelings until that .01% turns into something
unmistakably audible.)

With that in mind, could be that shifting finite resources to a better pre is in
fact worthwhile.

There is (or was) a little single-channel Grace Designs preamp, for around US$500,
IIRC, that uses the same core preamp card as its big brothers, the 201 and 801
preamps. Might be worth a look -- assuming you want clean and transparent. Some
applications require something different.

YMMV

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"muzician21" wrote in message
...

First, it's unclear to me that you even got what I was saying.

You keep saying that.

I didn't say "I feel like I can't tell", what I was getting at was
what's a pre that's going to make such a distinct and obvious
difference that someone would *have* to be tone deaf to not be able to
tell, less than optimal room or no. I'm a longtime musician, I have
very acute hearing, I can hear subtleties.

Given your proven inability to follow the non-subtle advice that you have
received from one and all, your claims for subtle perception are falling on
hard times.


"...Do that first, and once you have fully exploited and resolved the
highly audible
issues related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their
juxtapositioning,
you just might again think about your electronics...."

I.e. you set up all these preconditions without which it's pointless
to even think about the gear.

No I didn't. I think that thinking about gear is a good thing, right up to
the point where the quality of the gear reaches a certain level of quality.
The point that has been stated several times and that you keep mixxing is
that your gear has reached that point.


Again - "once you have FULLY EXPLOITED
AND RESOLVED THE HIGHLY AUDIBLE ISSUES..." - your words.

I'm happy to stand by them.

"Fully exploited"? So until I have a treated room, Marshall MXL Tube
mic or $5 Walmart electret computer mic, I won't be able to tell anything.

You are simply not making any sense at all. I didn't say "treated room", I
said "resolve the highly audible issues related to rooms."

BTW, there is an obvious non-combative way out that you seem to keep
avoiding, which is a statement that you have taken the following steps to
ensure that the room is not a serious issue.

Not every room needs treatment, and in fact the majority of good performance
spaces are just fine as they are. Or, at least they are manageable with
proper attention to mic choice and placement.

I have reason to believe this isn't correct.

Then why did you make this issue up?

Out of an approximately 26 post thread so far I've seen two names of
preamps.

I know that one mention was for sure was pure liquid sarcasm.

I got that he was trying to throw out something fairly pricey to be a
smartass but guess what, I looked it up. Who knows, I might just
"borrow" one from the world of commerce just for grins and see what
something 10x the price sounds like in comparison.

Unless you do a very, very careful comparision, you will hear a difference
that is due to differences in how you use that 10x more expensive preamp.
Aside from that, there's another question about whether or not you can
separate "sounds different" from "sounds better".

This is getting silly - haven't you figured out the truth, yet?

Yes, you get testy easy

No, I dislike having my words tied into pretzels.

and are quick to assume certain things,

Name an assumption that I actually made, not some assumption that you picked
out of the wind.

which is probably why I've seen you at the center of numerous squabbles on
this forum.

It is true that I don't run away from people who like to assert over and
over again that they are right when they are clearly wrong. In this case
there are tons of people who are making responses to you that are very
similar to mine. So, if I'm being testy this conference is filled with testy
people.

But all that aside, I do appreciate the useful parts of your input.

Thanks.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/27/2011 6:16 PM, muzician21 wrote:

No, not looking for anything holy, just exploring a curiosity. While
the various elements of the recording environment merit consideration,
I was just asking for some suggestions for gear. I don't have an
optimal recording or monitoring environment

Well, aren't you curious about how a better recording and
monitoring environment will improve your recordings?

The best way to satisfy your curiosity about mic preamps is
to just get a different one in house and compare it to what
you're using now. Time to move on.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"muzician21" wrote in message
...

First, it's unclear to me that you even got what I was saying.

You keep saying that.

I didn't say "I feel like I can't tell", what I was getting at was
what's a pre that's going to make such a distinct and obvious
difference that someone would *have* to be tone deaf to not be able to
tell, less than optimal room or no. I'm a longtime musician, I have
very acute hearing, I can hear subtleties.

Given your proven inability to follow the non-subtle advice that you have
received from one and all, your claims for subtle perception are falling on
hard times.


"...Do that first, and once you have fully exploited and resolved the
highly audible
issues related to rooms, microphones, musicians and their
juxtapositioning,
you just might again think about your electronics...."

I.e. you set up all these preconditions without which it's pointless
to even think about the gear.

No I didn't. I think that thinking about gear is a good thing, right up to
the point where the quality of the gear reaches a certain level of quality.
The point that has been stated several times and that you keep mixxing is
that your gear has reached that point.


Again - "once you have FULLY EXPLOITED
AND RESOLVED THE HIGHLY AUDIBLE ISSUES..." - your words.

I'm happy to stand by them.

"Fully exploited"? So until I have a treated room, Marshall MXL Tube
mic or $5 Walmart electret computer mic, I won't be able to tell anything.

You are simply not making any sense at all. I didn't say "treated room", I
said "resolve the highly audible issues related to rooms."

BTW, there is an obvious non-combative way out that you seem to keep
avoiding, which is a statement that you have taken the following steps to
ensure that the room is not a serious issue.

Not every room needs treatment, and in fact the majority of good performance
spaces are just fine as they are. Or, at least they are manageable with
proper attention to mic choice and placement.

I have reason to believe this isn't correct.

Then why did you make this issue up?

Out of an approximately 26 post thread so far I've seen two names of
preamps.

I know that one mention was for sure was pure liquid sarcasm.

I got that he was trying to throw out something fairly pricey to be a
smartass but guess what, I looked it up. Who knows, I might just
"borrow" one from the world of commerce just for grins and see what
something 10x the price sounds like in comparison.

Unless you do a very, very careful comparision, you will hear a difference
that is due to differences in how you use that 10x more expensive preamp.
Aside from that, there's another question about whether or not you can
separate "sounds different" from "sounds better".

This is getting silly - haven't you figured out the truth, yet?

Yes, you get testy easy

No, I dislike having my words tied into pretzels.

and are quick to assume certain things,

Name an assumption that I actually made, not some assumption that you picked
out of the wind.

which is probably why I've seen you at the center of numerous squabbles on
this forum.

It is true that I don't run away from people who like to assert over and
over again that they are right when they are clearly wrong. In this case
there are tons of people who are making responses to you that are very
similar to mine. So, if I'm being testy this conference is filled with testy
people.

But all that aside, I do appreciate the useful parts of your input.

Thanks.

If he needs "testy" let me know. I can handle that one.

People wanna buy stuff. They want it to be stuff they can brag about.
They often don't realize the extent to which they could brag about
getting their monitoring situation as right as possible, step by step.
That gets different bragging rights, like, "My mixes are translating
very well across a huge range of playback systems".

Bill Johnson in Austin is a good and old friend of mine. He puts
together studios for folks all over the country, and is often chosen for
his ability to tweak the acoustics of a space. He brings an array of
measurement devices to the task, and applies remedies based on the data
acquired until it's down to the left red hair on a gnat's ass. That gets
combed into place using ears. Bill put together the space at Jerry
Tubb's Terra Nova Digital, where I like to go for mastering. Bill's
stories of that proces, down to the last step, after 40+ bass traps,
none of which anyone can see, were in place, diffusers, non-parallel
walls, the whole regular bits fully taken care of, a killer playback
system, and one last thing to make it finally "I don't have to mess with
it anymore" right.

Jerry doesn't need to brag. All that is required is for a sentient being
to enter that room and listen. When we mastered Carry Me Home some time
was going to be eaten transferring files into Jerry's system. Shaidri
and I had taken a guitar and a fiddle to the mastering suite, just for
the hell of it, and while the transfer was happening we played a few
fiddle tunes for Jerry. He hadn't heeard live music in that room, and
believe me, every tweak to get it right for playback contributed to make
it one amazingly good room in which to play live, acoustic music.

Fixing the room isn't glamorous, but it sure can cook.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[muzician21]

On Nov 28, 8:06 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Fully exploited"? So until I have a treated room, Marshall MXL Tube
mic or $5 Walmart electret computer mic, I won't be able to tell anything.

You are simply not making any sense at all. I didn't say "treated room", I
said "resolve the highly audible issues related to rooms."


That sorta sounds like "I didn't say elephant, I said large gray land
mammal with big floppy ears, tusks and a trunk."

What praytell -do- you mean by "once you have fully exploited and
resolved the highly audible issues related to rooms" if you don't mean
doing things to alter, change, modify - *treat* the room
acoustically?

There's no real debate whether treating a space is beneficial, just
whether it's really crucial in this case.


Name an assumption that I actually made,


I "just want bragging rights" - I have no problem telling people I
have a $150 pre I got for under $70. Does it sound like I'm label
conscious?

I'm a liar - apparently because I frankly stated how something you
said struck me.

I'm looking for a "holy grail" - only if I'm watching the Monty Python
movie.


In this case
there are tons of people who are making responses to you that are very
similar to mine. So, if I'm being testy this conference is filled with testy
people.


I haven't perceived the confrontational tone from others that you seem
to readily adopt - and I'm afraid your history precedes you.

I believe you have useful things to impart, you could stand to tone
down the accusatory reactiveness.

[muzician21]

On Nov 28, 7:14*pm, muzician21 wrote:

There's no real debate whether treating a space is beneficial, just
whether it's really crucial in this case.


Take a guess where these short examples were recorded.

http://www.4shared.com/audio/qZ193ktF/demo.html