Mic channel strips around $500.00

Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:42 am

Nothing wrong with how your doing it. If you intend on doing any other processing in cubase or with plugs, I'd leave more that a few dB below 0dBFS so there is headroom to work with.

Nothing getto about the E-MU 1212M. It is a pro piece of kit. Far superior is sound and quality than what most are using for an audio interface, including the MBOX.

Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:55 am

I dunno Kurt; maybe I got the good one? The tech specs look fine to me, although I don't totally understand everything. I assume when it says Internal Operation Level : +4dBu = 0db , that this is normal? Headroom of +28dBu seems adequate too. Freq response +/- 0.5dB 10Hz-40k, THD+Noise 0.0024%. I know these don't amount to squat as far as sound, but hey. Some day when I get bored with it I will look into putting the Jensens in too. Could the M80 have some kind of powering problem having 6 extra channels?

I don't suppose you were using the Mix Output to feed your recorder or something? Cause that feeds the signal through the summing buss, which has a separate volume control. I'm running balanced XLR to TRS MonsterStudiolink cable from the Channel One and Channel Two outputs into the TRS jacks on my Multiface and having no problem with volume. Even with the pad on for overheads, I can overload the converters if I want to.

And speaking of the Brick, I had been using that on kick, but I switched it over to snare duty with 57 last weekend and with the gain knob all the way down it was showing up as an overload on the meters Shocked

. Might have to get a pad for that guy. Luckily there is some headroom left in the converters when it says overload, but I forget how much exactly. As long as it don't go CraCkLeZAp!

PS: Some poor schmuck had to go through my manual and white-out the word "Jensen" where it appears. "The MP20 offers a high quality _______ transformer on each channel." Kinda funny...; what were the morons thinking? Coulda been a much better contender and made them more money in the long run even if it cost more to produce....Keep the IDSS crap; put the Jensens back!

Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:10 pm

thanks for the reply audiogaff

I am very happy with the 1212m so far but I could use a better preamp. another thing that kind of sucks is I can't record at 24bit 96k because my processor is to slow.

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:22 pm

i find it difficult to post my opinion on this topic since in the past it has lead to an exhausting exchange of posts similar to the few already exchanged here.

a performance that i do not have the energy or inclination to repeat.

nevertheless i would hope that i can simply give my honest opinion and have it be accepted at face value.

for $500 (or less) I have found the RNP to be a valuable tool for my recording. It doesn't fit the 'channel strip' description so my apologies for that. I have it running through an RNC which i use primarily for level control although since i started recording in 24 bit it hasen't got as much use.

I have used only 'budget' preamps (Mackie, low end Joe Meek, Presonus Blue Tube, MAudio Duo) but find there to be a descernable improvement, come mixdown, to tracks recorded with this preamp vs the others i have used. specifically, less of a mid range 'haze' built up over tracks. the HiZ inputs i also find to have a more dynamic 'exciting' sound when DI-ing Bass and Guitar (more attack, less muddy sound).

i am an amateur recordist. which is to say that i record because i love to. this particular piece of gear has enhanced my enjoyment. i purchased it after borrowing a friend's to test drive. a year later, i have no regrets about the money i spent.

i may be dillusional but i checked out fine at my last visit to the doctor. i may also be suffering from the placebo effect but the sugar pills prescribed to me seem to be helping with that.

cheers,
greg

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:20 pm

Quote:

I assume when it says Internal Operation Level : +4dBu = 0db , that this is normal?

No it's not ... it's the other way around ... PreSonus runs the nominal operating level at 0dB instead of the more accepted +4db ... this means when the meter hits 0, it is are putting out 0dB ... instead of +4dB.

Quote:

i find it difficult to post my opinion on this topic since in the past it has lead to an exhausting exchange of posts similar to the few already exchanged here ..... nevertheless i would hope that i can simply give my honest opinion and have it be accepted at face value.

I would ask the same for me ... although often, like in this instance, some seem to think I should be throttled back so they can all post comments on how wonderful their cheap pres sound without my pointing out the discrepancies in thier remarks ....

Quote:

for $500 (or less) I have found the RNP to be a valuable tool for my recording .....

.... I have used only 'budget' preamps (Mackie, low end Joe Meek, Presonus Blue Tube, MAudio Duo) but find there to be a descernable improvement, come mixdown, to tracks recorded with this preamp vs the others i have used. specifically, less of a mid range 'haze' built up over tracks. the HiZ inputs i also find to have a more dynamic 'exciting' sound when DI-ing Bass and Guitar (more attack, less muddy sound).

I do not doubt that you are hearing what you consider an to be an improvment. But there is a lot more that you are completely unaware of ...and that's what I trying to tell you and others all the time. There's more to it than just "tone".

This is the crux of the matter / argument I make ... you say "I have used only 'budget' preamps" ... so what is your frame of reference ..?

Here's what our buddy Fletcher had to say about this in an unguarded moment when he was discussing small mixers ... but it goes just as well for cheap pre amps .. and is exactlly what I have been saying about the RNP for years now ..

Fletcher wrote:

The stuff like Ghosts and Mackies don't have the headroom nor phase response with insufficient power supplies to deliver proper current on demand to form a proper bass wave or pass a transient.

A pre amp that will run on 8 volts, cannot sound good IMO.

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:35 pm

Quote:

HEY!...Dont include me in ANY of this.

Sorry. I didn't try to "include" you...since you'd posted to the thread I figured you'd "included" yourself.

Quote:

I know whay I try to steer people to the high end, what puzzels me is why you and others want to encourage people to buy cheap crap that will be obsolete sh*t in a couple years .. or that when it fails, will be cheaper to replace rather than repair, which is the case with all the less expensive gear ...

Hey, I'm all for the high end. Most of my preamps are what you'd consider "high end" as well. But along the way I did pick up and use a few of the "in between" preamps, which I found to be a significant improvement over the preamps in my Mackie board, and over which I've found my new preamps to be a significant improvement as well. But I don't think they were wastes by any means...and they didn't become obsolete, and never broke down. And I'm still happy with the tracks I recorded with them. Having said that, I'm still happy with some of the tracks I recorded with my Mackie as well...

And having said that, I should state that I do agree that a lot...perhaps most...of the cheap stuff out there is no better than, and often worse than, the Mackie preamps. But that doesn't mean that none of it is a significant improvement.

Quote:

The Eureka is the same topology as it's predicessors from PreSonus (twin servo) and as such I don't see that it's going to sound any "better" than them.

Just because it uses the same twin servo design doesn't mean it will sound the same...especially if they've set out to improve it, and it specs out better. But how could you know if it will sound "better" or not if you haven't heard it? And if you don't care, why comment at all?

Quote:

Again, different? Yes ... better? Very subjective. It's interesting you don't see the top engineers and studios using this kind of gear ... I think there's a reason for that.

I think we're in agreement there, with the subjective part especially. If it is subjective, then it certainly may be better for some people.

As for why the top engineers and studios don't use it...there are actually a few high-end users on Presonus's website. But I think that the reason is pretty clear...because there is better stuff out there that costs more that they can afford. That doesn't meant that this stuff can't be a significant improvement over the Mackie.

Quote:

I stand by my comment, " Anyone who will claim a significant improvement over a Mackie using an RNP or a PreSonus pre, is either suffering from placebo effect (a very real phenomenon) or in my estimation, due to making such comments, not capable of hearing or experienced enough to make the judgment." , whether you think it's condecending and presumptous or not ....

Of course I think it's presumptuous and condescending. I don't disagree that you didn't hear a significant improvement over the Mackie with the RNP (or the M80, I suppose), or even that there wasn't a minor difference in your samples. What I do disagree with is your statement that anyone who will claim a significant improvement is either suffering from placebo effect or not experienced enough to make that judgment. Especially since you're basing your findings on a few tracks you've recorded rather than using the preamps in combinations of various microphones and sources, both by themselves and in the context of a mix. There are enough people out there who have heard a significant improvement...myself included...that I think that your generalization is wrong and the statement itself is presumptuous. I'm not saying that your findings weren't valid. Just that they're not as all-encompassing as you seem to feel they are.

Quote:

I would ask the same for me ... although often, like in this instance, some seem to think I should be throttled back so they can all post comments on how wonderful their cheap pres sound without my pointing out the discrepancies in thier remarks ....

If that was intended for me...I don't think you should be "throttled back", and I haven't said anything about how wonderful my cheap preamps sound. I'm also not sure that there have been any discrepancies in my remarks. Maybe that wasn't targeted towards me after all.

Quote:

I have used only 'budget' preamps (Mackie, low end Joe Meek, Presonus Blue Tube, MAudio Duo) but find there to be a descernable improvement, come mixdown, to tracks recorded with this preamp vs the others i have used. specifically, less of a mid range 'haze' built up over tracks. the HiZ inputs i also find to have a more dynamic 'exciting' sound when DI-ing Bass and Guitar (more attack, less muddy sound).

I do not doubt that you are hearing what you consider an to be an improvment. But there is a lot more that you are completely unaware of ...and that's what I trying to tell you and others all the time. There's more to it than just "tone".

This is the crux of the matter / argument I make ... you say " I have used only 'budget' preamps " ... so what is your frame of reference ..?

Here's a case where, if I'd made the comments in question, I'd probably be offended. I guess since "quality" of preamps is subjective your saying that he's hearing what he "considers" to be an improvement may be valid...although that would be the case for every time someone said they heard an improvement, wouldn't it? He was pretty specific about what the improvement he heard was, so I don't think that he was hearing a placebo-type effect or that he doesn't know what he's listening for. As for the fact that he's only used "budget" preamps...that's all the frame of reference we need, isn't it? We're talking about about these preamps as a significant improvement over Mackie-type preamps, not trying to say they're as good as the higher-end stuff, aren't we?

Quote:

Here's what our buddy Fletcher had to say about this in an unguarded moment when he was discussing small mixers ... but it goes just as well for cheap pre amps .. and is exactlly what I have been saying about the RNP for years now ..

Fletcher wrote:

The stuff like Ghosts and Mackies don't have the headroom nor phase response with insufficient power supplies to deliver proper current on demand to form a proper bass wave or pass a transient.

That doesn't really apply here. He wasn't talking about small mixers...the Ghosts and Mackies (the 8-Bus mixers are the ones he was talking about) actually use fairly large outboard power supplies. He wasn't talking about the preamps, he was talking about the capabilities of their mix buses in comparison to mixers like Neve's and SSL's if I recall correctly. Although it's true, if you've got 32 preamps running pretty hot and delivering phantom power from a single power supply, even a reliatively large one like the ones in the Ghost and 8-Bus boards, you can have issues. You'd probably be better off having a single smaller power supply dedicated specifically to a few channels, or a beefier power supply for the board.

Quote:

A pre amp that will run on 8 volts, cannot sound good IMO.

You're talking about the RNP specifically here, aren't you? It uses an 8v power supply, but it's still a pretty beefy power supply...1.5 amps, I believe. Do you know what voltage it runs on internally? (I don't, that's why I'm asking.)

Again, I'm not trying to encourage everyone to go out and buy a bunch of cheap crap. I just don't agree that all of the cheap stuff out there is on the same level (and I'm even talking about some of the cheaper PreSonus stuff, which I'm not such a fan of). And, for that matter, some of the more expensive stuff doesn't really tickle my fancy either.

-Duardo

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:37 pm

Duardo ...
I wasn't directing anything at you ... That response was to petethomaslyons and Teleharmonics, (among others) posts. When I see some of these posts it reads to me like some people think should just shut up and stop telling people that cheap pres are cheap and good ones are good .. I wonder why all the animosity and personal remarks have to be included. I know what motivates me to push people to the high end ... and I wonder why some people want to pull people to the cheap stuff?

Quote:

And having said that, I should state that I do agree that a lot...perhaps most...of the cheap stuff out there is no better than, and often worse than, the Mackie preamps. But that doesn't mean that none of it is a significant improvement.

IMO, none of it is an improvement. Some of it is different, but not better. If you perceive a difference as being "better", fine. Cheap is cheap and I don't believe in a free lunch ... you still pay for the beer. "Significant improvement" is subjective ... what you feel is significant may not be to me ... Any perceived "improvement" a PreSonus pre or a RNP offers over a Mackie or other cheap pre does not warrant the added expense IMO .. I would point out that tonal differences can be approximated with judicious use of good eq (another topic). But of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion ... me included.

As to the PreSonus Eureka pre being any different than the M80's I reviewed, I concede that point, it's possible it's different, ok? Perhaps as "different" as an original Mackies pre is to a Mackie vlz pre, as is to a Mackie vlz pro pre, as is to a Mackie ONYX pre ... How many times are we going to go for the "potato in the tail pipe trick"?
"New and improved" is a very old marketing tool ... even the PreSonus site admits the Eureka's pre is an extension of the technology used in the M20 series of pres. While it may indeed be "different" I suspect it is more the same than different. I will remain suspicious until someone shows me otherwise.

"Logic" ran into exactly the same gain issues that I did .... so again, I am not making this stuff up.

Logic wrote:

Wel I have to be honest and report. I was warned & didn't listen to the +4 vs 0db part of Kurt's dislike. I had decided on the eureka after many positive reviews. The preamp is being returned.. by the time it drives my inputs properly at +4 db setting the output needle is hammered so far to the left I can hear it beat the end of it's travel.
The output is turned WAY up also. All my other (cheaper) preamps drive my board fine. That can't be good. Why in the world would you make a preamp operate at 0 db when even I know most pro gear operates at +4!

Regarding living with and using these cheap pres, I don't have time for that stuff .. when anything fails to measure up to snuff ... it's "outta here" as far as I'm concerned .. I only need to take one bite of a sh*t sandwich ... it's not like "hmmmm ... I wonder if this is going to be better with potato chips instead of corn chips ..? Milk instead of soda pop?" No matter what it is eaten with ... it's still a sh*t sandwich ... "Would you like that sh*t sub toasted?" mmmm mmmm mmmm!

I'm fortunate enough to have plenty of channels of quality mic pres here, so I don't need a few "overflow" cheap pres to fill the gaps other than those in my Mackie which IMO at the price are fine ... and I'm still collecting a few more. All I'm saying is if you're serious, don't throw your money away on cheap gear that will be obsolescent, lose value or worse case scenario fail and be more expensive to repair than replace .. when the good stuff, while a few bucks more, will last forever and hold its value ... all while delivering superior sonic performance.

Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:12 am

Oops that was supposed to read hammered to the right! Neutral

Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:27 am

I must say-------this is one of the more interesting threads Ive read in a long time-------------shit,its even better than watching Survivor on the telee.
I really admire both Kurt and Daves opinions,I think both of you guys are top notch,and are only trying to help,sometimes things get lost in the shuffle.
Im fairly new to recording,I only have about 8 yrs into it,and I must say that Ive learned alot since joining RO.
As far as the budget gear forum is concerned,I believe you guys need to keep things in perspective.
There is no right--------------there is no wrong Laughing

In the mean time---------------------Im goona keep knob dicking,sliding the sliders,wearing my ears out recording.
I may have my poor boy toys---but you know that there my pride and joy.
Thumbs Up

Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:37 am

duardo... you can answer for me anytime.

kurt,

i feel that i have made my frame of reference fairly clear. i am an amatuer recordist who has only used budget preamps. i am not trying to appear to be anything more than i am or to know anything more than i know. In addition, i am not trying to 'pull' anyone anywhere. A web forum is only as good as the diversity of opinions it provides and i provided mine. I have never written anything that could be construed as showing animosity or attacking anyone personally. i try to be as thoughtful as possible and as helpful as possible within the limits of my experience.

part of the problem with web forums is that often a reader does not know who is speaking and what knowledge he or she may possess. i stated my level of involvement in recording and frame of reference so that a reader of this thread may weigh the value of my comments accordingly.

that being said, if i feel that i can add some sort of value to a thread by commenting i respect myself, and what i have learned from my recording experience, enough to do so. this is the premise, and the joy of a recording forum, no? i leave it up to others to decide what they will do with the information that i add to a conversation (armed with the frame of reference which i have provided.)

i am not trying to convince anyone to buy, or to not buy, anything.

a question was posed about a piece of gear in a given price range. you, and others, have suggested that the best course of action is to save up more money and buy something (like a Sebatron) that you feel will provide the user with a much greater value. that sounds like sage advice to me and i don't recall ever trying to disaude anyone from following that course of action.

i submitted information about a product within the proscribed price range but outside of the initial request in terms of functionality (for which i apologized). i did so because i have found there to be value in that particular product within the scope of my stated experience. i tried to be as helpful as possible in terms of what difference i hear when i compare this gear to the other gear that i have used.

you have stated that you wish to prevent people from wasting their money.. great! in my case, within my frame of reference, i do not feel that my money was wasted... that is all i am trying to say.

i respectfully request that, if you wish to respond to a comment that i have made that you disagree with, that you not presume to know what i hear or what i do not hear. that is what i mean when i say "take my comments at face value". i do not find there to be any value to the shared knowledge of this forum in you stating that i don't know what i'm talking about... or that what i do know is of little value. i know as much as i know and have responsibly attempted to provide a reference for others to gauge the value of my knowledge for themselves.

i ask this of you, not because i take any issue with your opinions or the knowledge that you share, but because your responses are discouraging me from taking part in a community which i would like to take part in.

you would like to see people save up their money a bit longer for something better. i am saying that what i have has served me well and i do not feel money has been wasted. i really don't see why these two opinions cannot co-exist peacefully. people who read the thread can use their intelligence and, within the limits of their bank account, do what they will.

greg

ps i apologise to readers for hijacking this audio related thread for this matter.

Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:53 pm

Quote:

I wonder why all the animosity and personal remarks have to be included.

I think that that happens because of the way you word things...personally, I don't take offense if someone disagrees with me. However, if someone tells me that I'm not really hearing what I'm hearing, or that I'm not experienced enough to know what to listen for...well, it takes a lot to offend me, but I can see why many people would take that personally.

Quote:

Cheap is cheap and I don't believe in a free lunch ... you still pay for the beer. "Significant improvement" is subjective ... what you feel is significant may not be to me ... Any perceived "improvement" a PreSonus pre or a RNP offers over a Mackie or other cheap pre does not warrant the added expense IMO .. I would point out that tonal differences can be approximated with judicious use of good eq (another topic). But of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion ... me included.

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. But you seem to feel that if people don't agree with you on this they're wrong...again, that they're either experiencing the placebo effect or not experienced enough to know what they're hearing, right? I don't think that anyone can be "right" or "wrong" when it comes down to whether something sounds "good" or not, but invalidating others' opinions does seem wrong to me. As you said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

I know that cheap is cheap. Neither of the preamps that we're talking about here are what I'd consider "cheap"...not when you compare it to some of the ART, Mackie, dbx, Behringer, etc stuff out there. And I think that's really what we're discussing here.

As for the haze that builds up in mixes with some of the cheaper (and even some of the better) preamps...I've found that it's not something that can be easily taken care of with EQ. I don't know if it has more to do with phase or something, but in many cases I think there's more to it than just that.

Quote:

As to the PreSonus Eureka pre being any different than the M80's I reviewed, I concede that point, it's possible it's different, ok? Perhaps as "different" as an original Mackies pre is to a Mackie vlz pre, as is to a Mackie vlz pro pre, as is to a Mackie ONYX pre ... How many times are we going to go for the "potato in the tail pipe trick"?

We're not going to fall for the banana in the tailpipe.

Quote:

"New and improved" is a very old marketing tool ... even the PreSonus site admits the Eureka's pre is an extension of the technology used in the M20 series of pres. While it may indeed be "different" I suspect it is more the same than different.

Maybe it is more the same than different...the MP20/VXP/M80 stuff has apparently been very successful for Presonus, so I don't imagine they'd change it much...just make it better where they can. Sure, "new and improved" is an old marketing tool...but it seems like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you have the same product out for too long it's "old" or "obsolete", but if you make improvements you're selling snake oil...

Quote:

"Logic" ran into exactly the same gain issues that I did .... so again, I am not making this stuff up.

I never said you were making it up. That's an design choice Presonus made. I don't think the small level difference is a huge deal...especially not if you're recording with good 24-bit converters. But I agree it can be an inconvenience.

Quote:

I must say-------this is one of the more interesting threads Ive read in a long time-------------shit,its even better than watching Survivor on the telee.

Yeah, well, Survivor has kind of gone downhill I think...

Quote:

duardo... you can answer for me anytime.

Aww, shucks.

Quote:

you would like to see people save up their money a bit longer for something better. i am saying that what i have has served me well and i do not feel money has been wasted. i really don't see why these two opinions cannot co-exist peacefully. people who read the thread can use their intelligence and, within the limits of their bank account, do what they will.

I guess you can answer for me as well...I agree. I do use what you'd probably consider "high end" preamps. And I started out with Mackie preamp and an ART Tube MP (which I did find to be "different" but not necessarily "better"...but it was certainly better on some sources, where the Mackie was better on others). Along the way I've gone through a few other "midrange" preamps, including a Focusrite Tone Factory, which I find to be a good preamp and a significant improvement over the Mackie (not to mention the EQ, etc). I don't use it much any more and am considering selling it...but in any case, I don't think that my money on it was wasted, as it was an improvement over the Mackies and a good "stepping stone" to what I have now. If I could go back I would not have skipped that "step" as it offered me enough of an improvement to justify what I spent on it, regardless of what I can get for it if I do wind up selling it.

I'd agree...read these threads, collect opinions, but ultimately try to hear a few preamps and pick what you like best, regardless of what specs or other people say.

-Duardo

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:58 pm

I'm sorry if I offend by saying what I believe is true.. sorry if you get your feelings hurt because I slam your newest purchase ... but I don't do this to be cruel or out of some sense of snobbish superiority. I do it because I have to be true to myself and to all of you as well. I am not here to validate your purchase decisions ... especially if I think they are whack.

All I can say is .... get a rack of Neves, APIs, Sebatrons, Great Rivers, Millennia's .. or any other high end mic pre ... Live with them for several months ... (it takes that long to learn to hear the difference). You will never go back to cheap pres and like me, you will be singing their praises ... while you pooh pooh the budget stuff ...

Really, everything else is so affordable these days ... I really don't think this is so much of an expense when you consider the low cost of affordable multi tracks mics and other recording peripherals ....

If your tracks, mixes and work in general doesn't improve ... I'll eat my hat. Even a complete moron will perform better work with quality tools ... Would you want your dentist or doctor to use budget equipment? How about your local mechanic? Why should it be different with your music?

One of the things I have seen here over three years is people who's first posts ask for purchase advice .... upon which they go out and buy some budget pres on the advice they have received.

A couple months later, they are back asking "How do I get this or that sound?, How do I get my mixes to sit right?" and "No matter what I do, my stuff doesn't sound as good as records."

Regardless if a person says they are doing it as a hobby or what ever the excuse is for buying cheap ... in many cases they will come back later with complaints about the quality. I think deep down inside, everyone hopes, against hope that they can somehow by the sheer force of their own talent, squeeze out mixes that will amaze everyone, especially when they discover it was done with cheap sh*t ... I know I did. Then I finally got to work in a real studio with a real console on a project. It didn't take long. As I set levels on the kick drum and tweaked the EQ on an old Trident console .. I said to myself "Ohhhhh .... now I get it!" (in an Edith Bunker voice). In other words, I have traveled the road you are on ... I know the pitfalls ... I am trying to keep you from making the mistakes I did.. and for that I am vilified repeatedly. Sometimes I wonder why I subject myself to this abuse.

Having great gear can improve the work of any recordist .. regardless of their experience level and IMO, there is no shorter route to quality recordings than great mic pres.

Even with the expense of 8 to 16 channels of quality pres, a recordist can be into a full blown studio for less than what a crappy used car costs ...

Stop hitting the bars on the weekends ... pass on a bag of buds once in a while ... stop buying cigarettes and a six-pack every night .. don't buy a new pair of sneakers every month ..

IMO, art should require some sacrifice ... If not, then what's the point?

If you really aren't ready to spend 4 or 5 grand on a rack on mic pres ... then don't. But don't waste your dough on some half assed solution that will only frustrate you in the end either. Get a small console or a couple racks of something like the SP 828 that offers decent performance at a reasonable price. When it comes to budget pres the sonic difference between those that cost $250 per channel, (Syteks, PreSonus etc.) and the SP828 which runs $75 per channel, is negligible when viewed in context with all pres available.

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:29 pm

Quote:

I'm sorry if I offend by saying what I believe is true.. sorry if you get your feelings hurt because I slam your newest purchase ... but I don't do this to be cruel or out of some sense of snobbish superiority.

You didn't offend me. I think you know that...you'd just asked why people take some things you say personally and I offered a possible reason why. However, it does come off as you feeling a little superior when you basically say that if people don't hear what you hear it's because they don't know what they're doing. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that if you don't hear an improvement over the Mackie with an RNP that you don't know what you're doing.

Quote:

All I can say is .... get a rack of Neves, APIs, Sebatrons, Great Rivers, Millennia's .. or any other high end mic pre ... Live with them for several months ... (it takes that long to learn to hear the difference). You will never go back to cheap pres and like me, you will be singing their praises ... while you pooh pooh the budget stuff ...

I think that for many people who frequent this forum, getting a rack of high-end preamps isn't an option. I have a rack of high-end preamps and I don't have any plans to go back to the cheap pres...I do agree with you there...but I have no problem recommending certain inexpensive pres to people who aren't in a position to buy the higher-end stuff, and think that there are some very valid reasons to go with some over the others. If you really want to "pooh pooh" the budget stuff, why come to the budget forum?

Quote:

Really, everything else is so affordable these days ... I really don't think this is so much of an expense when you consider the low cost of affordable multi tracks mics and other recording peripherals ....

If you're looking at a $200 USB interface running a $300 software package, then a $500 preamp may even be a big expense.

Quote:

Even a complete moron will perform better work with quality tools ... Would you want your dentist or doctor to use budget equipment? How about your local mechanic? Why should it be different with your music?

I would much rather have a good doctor or mechanic working with "budget" equipment than have someone who doesn't know what they're doing working with the best equipment. Really, if you're a good enough engineer that the gear you use is your weakest link, then you've come a long way (I saw Roger Nichols say something similar once, worded differently, so I should give him credit for it).

Quote:

I think deep down inside, everyone hopes, against hope that they can somehow by the sheer force of their own talent, squeeze out mixes that will amaze everyone, especially when they discover it was done with cheap sh*t ... I know I did.

Most people probably would aspire to that. When travelling that proverbial road, people tend to either upgrade their gear as they go along or lose interest. I think it's wiser to upgrade as you go...even if you know you may eventually have better gear...then it is to hold off until you can afford the best or spring for the best before you're ready. I don't know enough about doctors or mechanics to draw up an analogy, so I'll just say that I'd hate to be sitting on $10K worth of gear when I realize that I don't really like recording.

Actually, I did take an auto mechanics class in college. I'm glad I didn't buy any tools before I took the class and realized that fixing cars doesn't really appeal to me at all (and that I don't really have the knack for it).

And I have heard mixes done on "cheap sh*t" that have amazed me. Most of them center around a great performance.

Quote:

Having great gear can improve the work of any recordist .. regardless of thei