With all this mic pre talk lately...

[Exsanguis]

I preferred B, followed by A. D sucked, and C seemed a little dead.

EDIT: Oops, just scrolled down and saw Matt's post including the preamp names. Makes sense to me, as the TG2 is one of my 3 favorite pre's for guitars (the others being a real Neve 1073 and an API 512 or 312, sound too close to really care). The Fireface is pretty impressive for something packaged with a converter, but I'd say that the nicer preamps would make a much bigger difference if the entire album was tracked with them, compared to one nice pre being used and a bunch of so-so to bad ones. The combination and addition of tracks on top of each other really shows the quality of the pre's and the choice of pre's, to me.

 

[Radd]

Yep, I feel like an ass!
I can't wait to get some monitors.

 

[Carrier Flux]

thanks a lot for doing this comparison.

there are definite differences in sounds between those clips, but to my ears none are particularly bad. none are like "god that's awful" anyhow.

Exsanguis: what's the main advantage in your experience of using higher end pre's "down the line" so to speak in the production process. is there better separation between instruments? can you do more with EQ before things start to sound bad? what else?

thanks..

 

[Ermz]

Cheers for that. Good to see most of us made pretty sensible choices

 

[~BURNY~]

Well, at least I pointed the octane as the worst... And I still think there's not much difference. I have to agree with Matt.

 

[Exsanguis]

Exsanguis: what's the main advantage in your experience of using higher end pre's "down the line" so to speak in the production process. is there better separation between instruments? can you do more with EQ before things start to sound bad? what else?

thanks..

It's been my experience that tracks recorded with higher end pre's stack up better when more and more are added on top of one another. For example, I'd have a much harder time telling a Mackie preamp from one track than a whole bunch of them. I guess this is caused by certain "ugly" frequencies or a lack of something adding up, making the lower quality much more important. As far as certain pre's taking EQ better than others, I haven't run into this phenomenon as much as I have with certain mics being a lot better for EQing than others. Some mics just never really sound right when I really need to get in there and EQ, whereas others are entirely malleable. As usual for this whole paragraph, YMMV

 

[davormen]

Heh, now I know I need a TG2... Well, my first "real" preamp was going to be either that or the API 3124... well, I might still go for the API, though... more pres...

 

[_RiseInside_]

It's been my experience that tracks recorded with higher end pre's stack up better when more and more are added on top of one another. For example, I'd have a much harder time telling a Mackie preamp from one track than a whole bunch of them. I guess this is caused by certain "ugly" frequencies or a lack of something adding up, making the lower quality much more important. As far as certain pre's taking EQ better than others, I haven't run into this phenomenon as much as I have with certain mics being a lot better for EQing than others. Some mics just never really sound right when I really need to get in there and EQ, whereas others are entirely malleable. As usual for this whole paragraph, YMMV

Amen!

The other day i recorded 5 tracks of vocals going through m-audio preamps and then through an avalon 737. Two opposite worlds...

 

[Carrier Flux]

Amen!

The other day i recorded 5 tracks of vocals going through m-audio preamps and then through an avalon 737. Two opposite worlds...

would it be too much to ask for a sound sample of this? *ducks and runs*