OK, I guess I really don't understand. Please forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the most basic question - one that I'm sure others really
don't get either. I have been reading this newsgroup a while, and have
even done a search on "Mic pre" in this group (42,000 results). The
answer still isn't clear.

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

What are the components that make up the sound of a mic p frequency
response, distortion, noise, slew rate? Are there others?

I have been using a Soundcraft Ghost for 8 or 9 years. I'm quite happy
with the results. I bought a Bellarri mic pre a few years ago,
thinking it would radically improve the sound I was getting (I know now
that it's not one that this group recommends very highly) and found
that I didn't like it as much for most things as the mic pre's in the
Ghost. There didn't seem to be anything special about it. It's harsh
on the top end, and slightly fuller in the bottom end. I don't notice
any particular harmonic distortion or clarity.

I have a large selection of mics from most of the best manufacturers.
When I find that I'm not getting what I want out of a recording, I
switch mics. I almost always have something tucked away that will
solve any problem I have. I am getting a very full and defined low end
(using a variety of nice bassy mics) and a crisp and clean high end.

I have always thought that the combination of mic and mic pre (as well
as other components in the system) was what really counted, not that
there was anything special in the mic pre itself.

Please set me straight.

And thanks for your patience with this basic question.

Ken

On 23 Jan 2006 07:19:30 -0800, "Ken Winokur"
wrote:

OK, I guess I really don't understand. Please forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the most basic question - one that I'm sure others really
don't get either. I have been reading this newsgroup a while, and have
even done a search on "Mic pre" in this group (42,000 results). The
answer still isn't clear.

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

What are the components that make up the sound of a mic p frequency
response, distortion, noise, slew rate? Are there others?

I have been using a Soundcraft Ghost for 8 or 9 years. I'm quite happy
with the results. I bought a Bellarri mic pre a few years ago,
thinking it would radically improve the sound I was getting (I know now
that it's not one that this group recommends very highly) and found
that I didn't like it as much for most things as the mic pre's in the
Ghost. There didn't seem to be anything special about it. It's harsh
on the top end, and slightly fuller in the bottom end. I don't notice
any particular harmonic distortion or clarity.

I have a large selection of mics from most of the best manufacturers.
When I find that I'm not getting what I want out of a recording, I
switch mics. I almost always have something tucked away that will
solve any problem I have. I am getting a very full and defined low end
(using a variety of nice bassy mics) and a crisp and clean high end.

I have always thought that the combination of mic and mic pre (as well
as other components in the system) was what really counted, not that
there was anything special in the mic pre itself.

Please set me straight.

And thanks for your patience with this basic question.

Ken

A good pre is very easy. It is a flat amplifier - hardly rocket
science.

It needs two qualities to go along with that - a low noise floor, and
high overload margin. The first is really quite easy, because the
first stage of amplification, the most critical, is already handled
within the microphone. For the second, it is really just a matter of
competent design and a high rail voltage. It should also have a
reasonably high input impedance, but for most mics that isn't quite so
important.

In terms of features, a good range of gain should be available, with a
nice, high quality pot that gives good repeatability.

If you find that a pre-amp has a "sound", there is something wrong
with it. A decent pre should be totally self-effacing. You deal with
sound in the choice of mic, and on the desk.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Ken Winokur" wrote in message
oups.com...
OK, I guess I really don't understand. Please forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the most basic question - one that I'm sure others really
don't get either. I have been reading this newsgroup a while, and have
even done a search on "Mic pre" in this group (42,000 results). The
answer still isn't clear.

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

What are the components that make up the sound of a mic p frequency
response, distortion, noise, slew rate? Are there others?

I have been using a Soundcraft Ghost for 8 or 9 years. I'm quite happy
with the results. I bought a Bellarri mic pre a few years ago,
thinking it would radically improve the sound I was getting (I know now
that it's not one that this group recommends very highly) and found
that I didn't like it as much for most things as the mic pre's in the
Ghost. There didn't seem to be anything special about it. It's harsh
on the top end, and slightly fuller in the bottom end. I don't notice
any particular harmonic distortion or clarity.

I have a large selection of mics from most of the best manufacturers.
When I find that I'm not getting what I want out of a recording, I
switch mics. I almost always have something tucked away that will
solve any problem I have. I am getting a very full and defined low end
(using a variety of nice bassy mics) and a crisp and clean high end.

I have always thought that the combination of mic and mic pre (as well
as other components in the system) was what really counted, not that
there was anything special in the mic pre itself.

Please set me straight.

And thanks for your patience with this basic question.

Ken, if you've been following the group, and if you've read some of those
42,000 posts about mic pres, and you still don't understand what's the big
deal, then I suggest that more words won't offer you much comfort. Go to
the Mercenary Audio site ... http://mercenary.com/3daudio3dprecd.html ...
and spend $30 on a CD that may actually answer your question. If you like
something you hear, I think Fletcher at Mercenary will be glad to send it to
you on approval.

Steve King

I'm not sure I totally agree with you on the "pre" sound thing. The ISA 110
has a sound and its one of my favorites. I guess if your talking about mid
range quality pres that applies, but top shelf stuff, I'm not really
confident I can agree.


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jan 2006 07:19:30 -0800, "Ken Winokur"
wrote:

OK, I guess I really don't understand. Please forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the most basic question - one that I'm sure others really
don't get either. I have been reading this newsgroup a while, and have
even done a search on "Mic pre" in this group (42,000 results). The
answer still isn't clear.

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

What are the components that make up the sound of a mic p frequency
response, distortion, noise, slew rate? Are there others?

I have been using a Soundcraft Ghost for 8 or 9 years. I'm quite happy
with the results. I bought a Bellarri mic pre a few years ago,
thinking it would radically improve the sound I was getting (I know now
that it's not one that this group recommends very highly) and found
that I didn't like it as much for most things as the mic pre's in the
Ghost. There didn't seem to be anything special about it. It's harsh
on the top end, and slightly fuller in the bottom end. I don't notice
any particular harmonic distortion or clarity.

I have a large selection of mics from most of the best manufacturers.
When I find that I'm not getting what I want out of a recording, I
switch mics. I almost always have something tucked away that will
solve any problem I have. I am getting a very full and defined low end
(using a variety of nice bassy mics) and a crisp and clean high end.

I have always thought that the combination of mic and mic pre (as well
as other components in the system) was what really counted, not that
there was anything special in the mic pre itself.

Please set me straight.

And thanks for your patience with this basic question.

Ken

A good pre is very easy. It is a flat amplifier - hardly rocket
science.

It needs two qualities to go along with that - a low noise floor, and
high overload margin. The first is really quite easy, because the
first stage of amplification, the most critical, is already handled
within the microphone. For the second, it is really just a matter of
competent design and a high rail voltage. It should also have a
reasonably high input impedance, but for most mics that isn't quite so
important.

In terms of features, a good range of gain should be available, with a
nice, high quality pot that gives good repeatability.

If you find that a pre-amp has a "sound", there is something wrong
with it. A decent pre should be totally self-effacing. You deal with
sound in the choice of mic, and on the desk.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Ken Winokur wrote:

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

These kinds of questions can only be answered by messing with top line
mics and pres. Nobody can describe the essence of such experience, but
in my own, the answer is that stuff sounds better very often through
good mics and pres, and if I have a choice between mundane mics with top
preamps or fine mics with mundane preamps I will take the former.

YMMV, but IME, yes, there is something intrinsic in an excellent mic
preamp and no, I can't "make it up" anywhere else in the chain.

--
ha

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:57:06 GMT, "Iain Fraser"
wrote:

I'm not sure I totally agree with you on the "pre" sound thing. The ISA 110
has a sound and its one of my favorites. I guess if your talking about mid
range quality pres that applies, but top shelf stuff, I'm not really
confident I can agree.

The sound is down to the eq that goes along with the pre. I'm sure the
amplifier itself is commendably flat.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:57:06 GMT, "Iain Fraser"
wrote:

I'm not sure I totally agree with you on the "pre" sound thing. The ISA 110
has a sound and its one of my favorites. I guess if your talking about mid
range quality pres that applies, but top shelf stuff, I'm not really
confident I can agree.

The sound is down to the eq that goes along with the pre. I'm sure the
amplifier itself is commendably flat.

Preamps often use transformers. Since transformers have nonoptimal
impulse response, they can change the sound a lot.

One of the most important things about a preamp is the CMRR and input
noise rejection, especially at high frequencies. It's hard to get
this without a transformer. Some of the transformerless circuits used
have some other issues with them (like the protection diodes needed
for instance... or the use of common-mode chokes).

It turns out not to be so easy to get 60 dB of straight gain with good
RF rejection. That's why the (transformerless) Millennia Media sounds
better than the Mackie 1202, and measures better with a straightwire
test too. If you look inside, they have basically the same rough
topology, but one costs two orders of magnitude more. It turns out to be
worth it.

Many of the preamps that use input transformers have coloration due
to the transformer. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending
on your application. Some of them are designed to minimize that coloration
(like the original Great River unit, or the John Hardy), while others
are not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ken Winokur wrote:

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

Most (if not all) of the electrical signal gain required to
bring a microphone level signal up to the line level needed
for recording is done in the preamp. More gain = more
chance for change* in the signal. Any change in the signal
is almost always undesirable unless it can be precisely
controlled for a specific "character".

*any of the various types of distortion.

Lack of "good" gain cannot be made up later.
Once it's lost it's gone.

rd

Don Pearce wrote:

It needs two qualities to go along with that - a low noise floor, and
high overload margin. The first is really quite easy, because the
first stage of amplification, the most critical, is already handled
within the microphone.

This only applies to active microphones (condensors).
Dynamics (including ribbons) and other passive transducers
rely on the first gain stage for the noise spec.

rd

"Ken Winokur" wrote in message
oups.com...

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

What are the components that make up the sound of a mic p frequency
response, distortion, noise, slew rate? Are there others?
[snip]
I have always thought that the combination of mic and mic pre (as well
as other components in the system) was what really counted, not that
there was anything special in the mic pre itself.

This is a whole 400-level course that it's impossible to really do justice
to in a few paragraphs -- but what the hell. Here goes.

First off, frequency response and distortion are indeed involved in the
sound of a preamp. Noise, if the preamp is competently designed, shouldn't
be an issue; a good preamp adds only a few dB to the intrinsic noise of the
mic. And these days slew rate is seldom an issue; except for some
ultra-cheapies, the circuits in most preamps have adequate slew rate.

The other issue that is important to the sound of a preamp is the load it
places on the microphone. Some mics (not all) will change their behavior
significantly with different load impedances. So you're right that the
combination of mic and mic pre counts, but I don't think it's the only
thing.

When we talk about distortion, it's not enough to specify a number and say
that this is the quantity of distortion. It is also important to specify the
*type* of distortion: in a harmonic distortion measurement, it's important
to note which harmonics are generated, and how the harmonic spectrum changes
with level and load. In an IM-distortion measurement, it's equally important
to note whether the preamp produces only first-order IM products, or
higher-order ones, again noting how the behavior changes with level and
load. It's been my experience that preamps with a harsh sound, even though
the total distortion level may be low when lab-tested, tend to have
distortion spectra with higher levels of high-order distortion products,
while preamps that don't sound harsh tend to measure with distortion spectra
comprised entirely of low-order distortion products.

Then there are "colored" preamps, designed to impose a particular sound via
irregularities in frequency response, distortion mechanisms, or transformer
hysteresis, but those are something of a separate ball-game. Other issues
include rejection of radio-frequency interference (RFI), which can cause IM
problems even when there's no overt breakthrough of disk jockeys into the
mic feed, and susceptibility to ground-loop weirdness.

That's just scratching the surface, of course, but it'll give you some idea
of the issues involved. Your Bellari, for example, has a godawful IC in its
output circuit, the source of much of the harshness, and a cruddy
transformer to boot. Clean those things up and you'll have the nucleus of a
good preamp.

Peace,
Paul

So this means that a totally colorless (and not necessarily expensive)
preamplifier will provide optimum results with condensor microphones
assuming that common-mode noise is not a problem?


RD Jones wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

It needs two qualities to go along with that - a low noise floor, and
high overload margin. The first is really quite easy, because the
first stage of amplification, the most critical, is already handled
within the microphone.

This only applies to active microphones (condensors).
Dynamics (including ribbons) and other passive transducers
rely on the first gain stage for the noise spec.

rd

jwvm wrote:
So this means that a totally colorless (and not necessarily expensive)
preamplifier will provide optimum results with condensor microphones
assuming that common-mode noise is not a problem?

If what you want is a totally colorless sound, yes.

The problem is that a lot of preamps have coloration to the sound that
isn't good. On the other hand, since condensers aren't usually very
sensitive to loading and have pretty high output, you can get away with
a pretty crappy preamp that, say, a ribbon mike will have major problems
with.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Steve King" wrote in message
. ..
"Ken Winokur" wrote in message
oups.com...
OK, I guess I really don't understand. Please forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the most basic question - one that I'm sure others really
don't get either. I have been reading this newsgroup a while, and have
even done a search on "Mic pre" in this group (42,000 results). The
answer still isn't clear.

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

What are the components that make up the sound of a mic p frequency
response, distortion, noise, slew rate? Are there others?

I have been using a Soundcraft Ghost for 8 or 9 years. I'm quite happy
with the results. I bought a Bellarri mic pre a few years ago,
thinking it would radically improve the sound I was getting (I know now
that it's not one that this group recommends very highly) and found
that I didn't like it as much for most things as the mic pre's in the
Ghost. There didn't seem to be anything special about it. It's harsh
on the top end, and slightly fuller in the bottom end. I don't notice
any particular harmonic distortion or clarity.

I have a large selection of mics from most of the best manufacturers.
When I find that I'm not getting what I want out of a recording, I
switch mics. I almost always have something tucked away that will
solve any problem I have. I am getting a very full and defined low end
(using a variety of nice bassy mics) and a crisp and clean high end.

I have always thought that the combination of mic and mic pre (as well
as other components in the system) was what really counted, not that
there was anything special in the mic pre itself.

Please set me straight.

And thanks for your patience with this basic question.

Ken, if you've been following the group, and if you've read some of those
42,000 posts about mic pres, and you still don't understand what's the big
deal, then I suggest that more words won't offer you much comfort. Go to
the Mercenary Audio site ... http://mercenary.com/3daudio3dprecd.html ...
and spend $30 on a CD that may actually answer your question. If you like
something you hear, I think Fletcher at Mercenary will be glad to send it
to you on approval.

Steve King

Or you could try http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/sessions.htm

for free.

Paul

I am, at least, in the same town.

thanks,
Ken

I am, at least, in the same town.

thanks,
Ken

On 23 Jan 2006 07:19:30 -0800, "Ken Winokur"
wrote:

What are the components that make up the sound of a mic p frequency
response, distortion, noise, slew rate? Are there others?

If you'd included the lumped-constant response of input
and output loading, this would have defined one popular
point of view.

And if you'd included intrinsic linearity, monotonic
amplitude nonlinearity, discussion of nonlinearity
spectra, etc., this would define another POV.

And if you'd included large signal out-of-band and
large signal common-mode, in and out of band, response,
this would define yet another POV.

And there are several other important points of view,
just like everything in the real world (as opposed to
our models of the world).


And thanks for your patience with this basic question.

Neils Bohr said that the opposite of a great truth was
another great truth. FWIW,

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Chel van Gennip wrote:

I think that is an important issue for preamps. With modern low impedance,
transformerless condensor microphones, you just want a flat, low noise, no
distortion preamp. That preamp is no rocket science, just a lineair
amplifier.

The most accurate preamp I've heard, the Gordon, was put together by a
rocket scientist kinda guy. g

--
ha

jwvm wrote:

So this means that a totally colorless (and not necessarily expensive)
preamplifier will provide optimum results with condensor microphones
assuming that common-mode noise is not a problem?

Ah, this all sounds like it ought to be so simple, in theory. But the
most accurate pre I've heard is the Gordon, and it ain't simple at all,
and it also ain't cheap. But it is lovely.

RD Jones wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

It needs two qualities to go along with that - a low noise floor, and
high overload margin. The first is really quite easy, because the
first stage of amplification, the most critical, is already handled
within the microphone.

This only applies to active microphones (condensors).
Dynamics (including ribbons) and other passive transducers
rely on the first gain stage for the noise spec.

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote:

[...] if I have a choice between mundane mics with top preamps
or fine mics with mundane preamps I will take the former.


I wonder why our similar experiences have yielded such opposing
conclusions?

While I agree that a good pre makes a crappy mic better, I'd still
rather just have good mics all the time, even if it means I have to run
them through pedestrian preamps. My experience has been that the
quality of the mic swamps almost any other consideration further down
the line.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:19:30 -0500, Ken Winokur wrote
(in article .com):

OK, I guess I really don't understand. Please forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the most basic question - one that I'm sure others really
don't get either. I have been reading this newsgroup a while, and have
even done a search on "Mic pre" in this group (42,000 results). The
answer still isn't clear.

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

It's very much a mix and match world.

1. Great mic pres usually make great mics sound better, but the impedance
matching (or mismatching) does cause color differences.

2. Simple mics like an SM57 can sound quite nice through more expensive mic
pres.

3. Some low to mid tier cheap condensers actually sound better through cheap
preamps than they do through really good preamps, however they DON'T sound as
good as great mics through the right great preamp.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:31:51 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

If you find that a pre-amp has a "sound", there is something wrong
with it. A decent pre should be totally self-effacing. You deal with
sound in the choice of mic, and on the desk.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

If that's so, then all API and Neve preamps must have something wrong with
them?

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Your Bellari, for example, has a godawful IC in its
output circuit, the source of much of the harshness, and a cruddy
transformer to boot. Clean those things up and you'll have the nucleus of a
good preamp.

Do you actually recommend this, as opposed to simply buying a better
one (RNP for instance)? If you do recommend it, who would you
recommend to do the work?

Thanks,
Ken Winokur
alloyorchestra.com

hank alrich wrote:
jwvm wrote:

So this means that a totally colorless (and not necessarily expensive)
preamplifier will provide optimum results with condensor microphones
assuming that common-mode noise is not a problem?

Ah, this all sounds like it ought to be so simple, in theory. But the
most accurate pre I've heard is the Gordon, and it ain't simple at all,
and it also ain't cheap. But it is lovely.

Actually, the Gordon _is_ pretty simple. It's just a bunch of simple
differential gain stages, one after the other, and some switching logic
to switch different stages in and out for different gains.

The reason that it isn't cheap is BECAUSE it's so simple. When you are
building simple and straightforward circuits, you're forced to use high
quality parts.

I swear half of the engineering that goes into typical consumer electronics
design is trying to figure out how to eliminate capacitors, because good
capacitors are expensive. If you don't care about the expense, you can
build much simpler circuits that soound better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ken Winokur wrote:
Your Bellari, for example, has a godawful IC in its
output circuit, the source of much of the harshness, and a cruddy
transformer to boot. Clean those things up and you'll have the nucleus of a
good preamp.

Do you actually recommend this, as opposed to simply buying a better
one (RNP for instance)? If you do recommend it, who would you
recommend to do the work?

If you have good soldering skills, by all means I'd recommend doing it
because it's not a lot of work and the parts are cheap. I think Monte
McGuire may have directions somewhere in the google archives for this
group.

If you don't have good soldering skills, I recommend developing them.
Get a temperature controlled iron and practice taking apart and putting
together some old PC power supplies. It's a thing you're going to need
in life... without it you are basically dependant on techs to do even
simple cable work for you.
--scott


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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
I swear half of the engineering that goes into typical
consumer electronics design is trying to figure out how
to eliminate capacitors, because good capacitors are
expensive. If you don't care about the expense, you can
build much simpler circuits that soound better.

But OTOH, some of the best premium mic preamps are
also specifically designed with a DC path, including
(relatively) complex servo circuits, etc to avoid the caps.

So I'm trying to decide if a new mic would work with my mic pre, an
Earthworks Lab 101. I've been using a Gefell M930, thinking of buying
a Soundelux U195, which is much less sibilant with my voice (I do
voiceovers). I've been testing the Soundelux out in the "fat" mode,
which gives a 4dB relaxation (below 200 Hz) of the overall NFB, and
with the locut mode activated. The "norm" mode with the locut switch
gives a 10 dB cut @ 30 Hz (relative to 100 Hz). There's also a "pad",
which is set for -10 dB. The user's manual says what the basic
frequency response of the mic is maintained when the pad is engaged,
however absolute signal to noise is lowered. I can use the pad in both
"fat" and "norm" modes.

The recommendation from Soundelux is to use fat + locut for female
vocals. Any thoughts from the group given the preamp I have? Thanks
much.

FYI, I'm more of a VO than an engineer, so don't be TOO technical OK?

wrote in message
ups.com...
So I'm trying to decide if a new mic would work with my mic pre, an
Earthworks Lab 101. I've been using a Gefell M930, thinking of buying
a Soundelux U195, which is much less sibilant with my voice (I do
voiceovers). I've been testing the Soundelux out in the "fat" mode,
which gives a 4dB relaxation (below 200 Hz) of the overall NFB, and
with the locut mode activated. The "norm" mode with the locut switch
gives a 10 dB cut @ 30 Hz (relative to 100 Hz). There's also a "pad",
which is set for -10 dB. The user's manual says what the basic
frequency response of the mic is maintained when the pad is engaged,
however absolute signal to noise is lowered. I can use the pad in both
"fat" and "norm" modes.

The recommendation from Soundelux is to use fat + locut for female
vocals. Any thoughts from the group given the preamp I have? Thanks
much.

FYI, I'm more of a VO than an engineer, so don't be TOO technical OK?


I've had a 195 for years & it's my main go-to mic for MY voice.

I can't imagine why you would need to use the pad at all. I sometimes sing
pretty loud right into it with no problems. It shouldn't have any problems
with high volume levels. You may occasionally want to pad the *preamp* in
certain situations, but I've rarely needed to do that, either. I'd think
someone doing VO wouldn't need pads at all, but maybe Ty or someone else can
'edumacate' me.

I do love the U195's fat switch, tho. Quite a terrific mic. I have no
experience with the M930, closest I've gotten is the UM70s, which was very
U87-ish to me, and quite limited, IMO. U195 is very versatile.

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

"Ken Winokur" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your Bellari, for example, has a godawful IC in its
output circuit, the source of much of the harshness, and a cruddy
transformer to boot. Clean those things up and you'll have the nucleus of
a
good preamp.

Do you actually recommend this, as opposed to simply buying a better
one (RNP for instance)? If you do recommend it, who would you
recommend to do the work?

Well, it's a philosophical question: do you want to write off the money you
put into the Bellari, or at least the difference between what you put into
it and what you could get out of it on e-bay? And how much time you got? I
wouldn't recommend hiring somebody to do it; I think it'd be more
cost-effective to buy an RNP or a Sytek or a used Peavey VMP2. But if you're
handy with a soldering iron you can make the Bellari decent by replacing the
transformers (Jensen JT-115K-E) and loading resistors, and the output ICs
(NE-5532s). Cost you about 175 bucks including shipping costs.

Peace,
Paul

wrote:

The recommendation from Soundelux is to use fat + locut for female
vocals. Any thoughts from the group given the preamp I have? Thanks
much.

FYI, I'm more of a VO than an engineer, so don't be TOO technical OK?

Try it. Either you'll like the sound or you won't.

If you have a sibilance issue, try different mike placement with your
existing mike. Tape a pencil to the front of the grille. Stick some
chewing gum behind your front teeth. Then consider changing stuff down
the chain like the mike.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
wrote:

SNIP

Stick some
chewing gum behind your front teeth. Then consider changing stuff down
the chain like the mike.
--scott

Never tried the chewing gum. Wouldn't want to have that as my regular cure
for sibilance ;-) However, as one VO to another and somewhat of an expert
in curing sibilance, I have a suggestion if that is your problem. According
to the speech therapist who helped me "cure" my sibilance early in my career
(25 years VO full time), the cure for most people is to move the tongue a
millimeter or so further back on the palate. Practice that and you will
soon be able to do it always --- at least always in front of a microphone.
Try it.

Steve King

I think it'd be more
cost-effective to buy an RNP or a Sytek or a used Peavey VMP2.

Thanks Paul, that's what I was thinking. I'm in no hurry about this
(my current setup has been working satisfactorly for almost a decade.)

My next question is, Is it really worth getting only 2 channels? I
typically record with 16 channels (14 mics and 2 directs from the
synth). The mics are for a huge percussion set-up, clarinet,
accordion, musical saw, glockenspeil. No vocals. Since I record myself
(or have my not to adept keyboardist hit the start button), I record
all the mics as we run perform the material, mostly live. Then I go
through and delete the unused or unnecessary mics.

If I have only two channels of mic pre, only about 15% of the tracks
will benifit from the good mic pre. I'm not sure that's going to make
much difference in the final product (Alloy Orchestra - silent film
soundtracks for DVD and CD, and other film and commercial projects).

Anyone have an opinion of the API ATI 8MX2 (8 channels) or similar 8
channel units (Octopre, Presonus, or other packages at less than $500
per channel)?

Ken Winokur
alloyorchestra.com

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote:

[...] if I have a choice between mundane mics with top preamps
or fine mics with mundane preamps I will take the former.

I wonder why our similar experiences have yielded such opposing
conclusions?

Well, it ain't because I'm weired and you're not...

While I agree that a good pre makes a crappy mic better, I'd still
rather just have good mics all the time, even if it means I have to run
them through pedestrian preamps. My experience has been that the
quality of the mic swamps almost any other consideration further down
the line.

Remember those Tonebarge tracks? Marshall mics through EAR preamps on
the drums? He said to me on the phone that he was thrilled to be getting
those kinds of sound with those inexpensive mics.

What made up my own mind about the conundrum was the difference in a
lowly SM57 through any of my cheap stuff (Mackie, A&H, Rolls RP220)
compared to the same mic through the Great River.

--
ha

Ken Winokur wrote:

Your Bellari, for example, has a godawful IC in its
output circuit, the source of much of the harshness, and a cruddy
transformer to boot. Clean those things up and you'll have the nucleus of a
good preamp.

Do you actually recommend this, as opposed to simply buying a better
one (RNP for instance)? If you do recommend it, who would you
recommend to do the work?

Use the Bellari as a color pre when you want some distortion, like blues
harp, some nasty guitar tracks, a raunchy snare, etc. When you want
cleaner from it use a low sensitivity mic like the Beyer M160 which will
not overload the lousy input transformer which has too many turns for
its own good. Or put a pad on other mics before they hit the pre.

--
ha

The input gain has been modified already. It's OK now for regular
mics. I do use it occasionally, particularly with my Rode NT1's, which
one engineer I work with described as having "a ****ed up high end."
Their disabilities seem to suite one another. As a bass or guitar
preamp, it's pretty useful.

Ken Winokur
alloyorchestra.com
"It sounds like a soul in hell" Asphalt Jungle

The input gain has been modified already. It's OK now for regular
mics. I do use it occasionally, particularly with my Rode NT1's, which
one engineer I work with described as having "a ****ed up high end."
Their disabilities seem to suite one another. As a bass or guitar
preamp, it's pretty useful.

Ken Winokur
alloyorchestra.com
"It sounds like a soul in hell" Asphalt Jungle

Ken Winokur wrote:
My next question is, Is it really worth getting only 2 channels? I
typically record with 16 channels (14 mics and 2 directs from the
synth). The mics are for a huge percussion set-up, clarinet,
accordion, musical saw, glockenspeil. No vocals. Since I record myself
(or have my not to adept keyboardist hit the start button), I record
all the mics as we run perform the material, mostly live. Then I go
through and delete the unused or unnecessary mics.

If I have only two channels of mic pre, only about 15% of the tracks
will benifit from the good mic pre. I'm not sure that's going to make
much difference in the final product (Alloy Orchestra - silent film
soundtracks for DVD and CD, and other film and commercial projects).

Based on your initial post, I will toss in the idea that you are doing
just what you need to be doing already with your Ghost console and 16
track recording. With the current craze for outboard mic preamps, there
are a ton of recording mixers loaded with preamps that don't get used
for anything. But again, reading your first post, I say why change if
you feel you get the results you like. You are really using the
equipment you have to good effect the way it was intended to be used.
There may be workflow advantages to your current setup that you will
lose if you start adding outboard pres also.

To play devil's advocate however, I would suggest if you do want to try
some preamp options, get one or two channels of the very best you can
afford and designate them to tracks you consider most crucial to the
recording - a solo instrument or primary stereo pair, drum overheads,
vocals, or what have you. And then again if you do overdubs you have
them.

Albert

Don Pearce wrote:

If you find that a pre-amp has a "sound", there is something wrong
with it.

If it's possible to even hear "the sound" after the signal has been
utterly brutalized by a speaker and room of even the highest quality
it's got to be a gross error.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:19:30 -0500, Ken Winokur wrote
(in article .com):

OK, I guess I really don't understand. Please forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the most basic question - one that I'm sure others really
don't get either. I have been reading this newsgroup a while, and have
even done a search on "Mic pre" in this group (42,000 results). The
answer still isn't clear.

What's so important about good mic pre's? Is there something intrinsic
in an excellent mic pre that can't be made up with the proper choice of
mic (with a decent mic pre)?

It's very much a mix and match world.

1. Great mic pres usually make great mics sound better, but the impedance
matching (or mismatching) does cause color differences.

As yet, this is an opinion not supported by any measurement or blind
testing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"hank alrich" wrote:

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

I wonder why our similar experiences have yielded such opposing
conclusions?

Well, it ain't because I'm weired and you're not...

Pretty safe conclusion.

By the way, did you know that if you say "Yabba Dabba Doo" backwards
real fast it sounds like faux Arabic?



What made up my own mind about the conundrum was the difference in a
lowly SM57 through any of my cheap stuff (Mackie, A&H, Rolls RP220)
compared to the same mic through the Great River.

I dig that, and acknowledge the benefit. No question that a good pre
makes an okay mic gooder.

I'm saying that a good mic makes an okay pre gooder. I think a good mic
through a so-so pre is better than a so-so mic through a good pre.

If I've got a thousand bucks to spend, I think there's more benefit to
be gained by buying a good mic and using the board pre than there is to
buying a good pre and using an otherwise-generic mic.

Of course, there's no way to test the relative merits. Which is better,
a 57 through a GR or a U89 through a Mackie?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Every time I consider putting some serious money into mic pre's I come
to the same conclusion you have. I'm doing pretty well as it is. I am
producing professional enough recordings to satisfy all of my clients
(and I'm getting all the work I need).

About 80% of what I record with mics is percussion (often junk metal
and wierd tidbits of things, but also many drums). I don't really
believe that anybody would notice any real improvement with these. None
of them are conventional sounding, and I have worked out the micing of
these things over a long period, and am totally happy with the
recordings (414 ULS on my 26" orchestral bass drum, ATM 25's on toms,
Beyer M201 on snare, ATM 4051a's as overheads, KM 84's, SM81's, RE 20,
Beyer M88 Classics, Baby Bottle, and Studio Project C3's as spot mics
on various other things.

But, I can imagine that the accordion and clarinet could benifit from a
better mic pre.

Because I'm using an old MOTU 2408 (MK I), with the old PCI 324 card,
I don't have the "zero latency monitoring." Therefore I can't easily
monitor everything through the computer. So, it's really convenient to
be able to monitor the mics as they pass through the board. Of course
I could put outboard mic pre's through the board as well (which I'm
sure would be some advantage over using the Ghosts pre's), but I assume
that I would be best served by going direct into the computer (via the
Tascam DA 88 and 78 I use for A/D).

That said, I think I will replace the Bellari with something better
(perhaps a RNP). It's a small enough investiment, and I assume that
the advantages will be as aparant as everybody says.

Thanks again to all. This has been a very informative discussion. I
always knew the final answer, it was the explaination that I needed.

Best,
Ken Winokur
alloyorchestra.com