I don't understand how you have trouble getting hot enough levels with the Presonus stuff. I have an MP20, which although slightly modded with the BurrBrown opamps, has NO trouble getting my RME converters to overload before the MP20 does itself. Did the BurrBrowns change its operation that much or something? (I do like it fine for overheds BTW. I'd rather shoot my foot than use a Mackie board preamp instead.)

Kurt was right

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!
Now..... since this IS the budget forum I would like to ask if anyone has favorable things to say or not about the focusrite trackmaster.
The Trackmaster pro is shipping soon and i was wondering if it would be ok. (I know I know it won't sound as good as a sebatron or API)

:wink:

Reggie wrote: I don't understand how you have trouble getting hot enough levels with the Presonus stuff. I have an MP20, which although slightly modded with the BurrBrown opamps, has NO trouble getting my RME converters to overload before the MP20 does itself. Did the BurrBrowns change its operation that much or something? (I do like it fine for overheds BTW. I'd rather shoot my foot than use a Mackie board preamp instead.)

Reggie,
Are you running at -10? I don't know why I had the problem ... I wrote Brad Zell at PreSounus about it and he had no insight to it either .. It wasn't a temination problem (balance vs unbalanced) or anything like that .. I used ATM 4033's, AKG 460's, 451's and a pair of SP C4's on drum overheads and I could not get more than -12 dB (digital scale) to my DAW (Cubase / Alesis AI3's set for +4) without overdirving and clipping the M80... I usually print at -6 to -2dB and I have no problem hitting that with my Sebatron, Great River MP2NV, Origin, 9098's or any of the other mic pres I have used. Perhaps the review unit was faulty, although across all 8 channels is doubtful ..

The PreSonus approach has a lot of potential ... It's twin servo topology is much the same as found in the very respected Hardy pres and MCI consoles although the whole chip / socket / Burr Brown thing leaves me with a few questions to ask someone who would know more about it. ...

The early PreSonus units with the Jensen transformers reportedly sounded much better than the newer ones. But the 0dB nominal level is an issue as far as I am concerned. However it does occure to me that an extra 4dB of gain wouldn't me that significant of an improvment .. All I can do is report the results to you as I observed them . I don't make this sh*t 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!

:wink:

Thanks LOGIC ... sorry to hear you had to go through all of that ... this is exactly what I hate to see happen to people and why I am so over zealous voicing my views.

I haven't heard it yet but the GT Brick seems like it might have the stuff judging from the build approach. I am not a huge fan of GT in general but this seems like it could be the inexpensive pre amp people are looking for.

Also, look at the Studio Projects SP828 for a cheap 8 channel mic pre ... Burr Brown chipped and a lot of people are saying it sounds as good as the Sytek but with twice as many channels at a fraction of the cost of the Sytek.

I don't care at all for the cheaper Focusrite stuff .. The ISA and Red range stuff is good but my feeling is the budget gear is only trading on the respected Focusrite name without delivering the goods.

I'm kind of new to recording and I'm trying to understand what kirt was saying

"One of the problems I encountered with PreSonus gear is it runs at a nominal level of 0dB ... to low to use correctly with +4 pro gear and too high to use with semi-prosumer -10dB gear ... In fact, the only thing the PreSonus pres match up correctly to, is a Mackie mixer"

I'm using a presonus tubepre running straight into my emu 1212m 1/4 line in. I use Cubase SX and Waves plugins for everything else.
I realize this is super getto but its the best I can afford right now.
I assumed that I set the input channel in Cubase to 0, then adjust the preamp level until I just about hit red on the Cubase channel strip. would this be correct for my super getto setup?

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.

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 bus, 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 :shock: . 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!

thanks for the reply audiogaff :D 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.

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

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.

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 ....

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

Oops that was supposed to read hammered to the right! :|

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 :lol:
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.
8-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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...

"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.

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...

duardo... you can answer for me anytime.

Aww, shucks.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

I don't disagree with the first part...there's a reason that those who can afford to use the best stuff...but I'm not sure that I agree that great preamps are the quickest route to quality recordings. I think learning good techniques is probably more important...maybe not quicker, but I think it will make more of a difference overall.

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

I agree. But the sacrifice doesn't necessarily have to be financial.

-Duardo

Kurt Foster wrote: I'm sorry if I offend by saying what I believe is true..

i didn't say i was offended, i said that i was discouraged. Not discouraged by your opinions on preamps but by the lack of open minded discussion on the matter.

sorry if you get your feelings hurt because I slam your newest purchase ...

no apology necessary, my feelings are not at all hurt. i didn't join in the discussion to get your opinion. I am well aware of your feelings on the matter.

I joined the discussion to comment on a preamp that i have owned and have been using succesfully for over a year. I felt that someone else might find value in my experience with this piece.

I am not here to validate your purchase decisions

I never asked you to. My purchase decision validated itself by the improvement in sound that i experienced. This is what my comment communicated.

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

this is most likely true.

while you pooh pooh the budget stuff ...

Actually, what i imagine my response would be is "the RNP is no Neve but i heard a discernable improvement in sound quality over the preamps that i used previously and i certainly got some good use out of it." Which is true.

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 have no complaints about the quality of my preamp, quite the opposite. Hence my post.

Sometimes I wonder why I subject myself to this abuse.

i have never said anything that could be deemed even mildly sarcastic, much less abusive, to you.

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

I would go you one further and say that without sacrifice that the art created will reflect the emptyness of the artist's efforts. But sacrifice, as Duardo suggested, can come in many forms. Sometimes sacrifice means something financial but sometimes sacrifice means letting go of preconceptions in order to see things in a new and fresh way. diversity of thought is one of the reasons i have enjoyed participating in online forums.

cheers,
greg

I think that the pres in most small mixers and the budget pres are all much better than the ones offered in the past. The RNP and PreSonus are perfect examples of this ... they are IMO close, but no cigar. I feel these types of pres all have more in common, than not ... and I lump them all together. To me they are like a car that can't make a left turn. Can you get from here to there with it? Sure ... but you may need to drive in a circle if you need to make a left turn.

Perhaps the difference in how we all view these questions is the crux or the matter. I see things in very sharp contrast, black and white with very few shades of gray while perhaps some of you prefer to mull over the finer points. That's why I bang out mixes in 3 hours while other take 3 days and why I use processing while tracking and other want to wait until mix to make the decisions. Of course, I think my approach is the correct one.

I do not think that any of the pre amps mentioned here are really terrible. I do think that all pre amps that (1) do not have super adequate power supplies and (2) are built using surface mount technology and miniaturization, tend to lack sonic punch, headroom and the ability to handle phase and bass propagation issues. If you like that sort of thing, the RNP and PreSonus type pres are the ticket for you.

Additionally, I like pres that use transformers and circuits that add texture and a sonic signature because I mostly produce Blues, Country and Rock "POP" music and because I grew up listening to records made with that kind of stuff, so of course I have been "conditioned" to think that's what sounds good.

So all the sonics aside and to get the thread back on topic, there is still one issue I have with the PreSonus pres in general that is a deal breaker. I am not sure what causes it and when I asked the guys at PreSonus about it, they could not explain it either. This is the inability of the PreSounus pres in some scenarios, to drive inputs much past -12db (digital scale) when operating at +4 pro levels. At that level the strain on the pre was very obvious. For it to be clean sounding, levels of -17 dB were more in line. I find this to be unusable IMO ... All my other pres can hit 0dB without breaking up and I like to track hitting peaks of about -6dB (digital scale). This keeps me from having to "normalize" tracks or boost volume on every channel on the DAW, which in turn keeps my system running clean. When a DAW has to boost volume across 24 or more channels at mix, your asking the processor to do a lot of extra math which in turn has its cost, usually resulting in mixes that can be ragged and harsh sounding with a loss of dimension and depth.

Are you sure you weren't using the Mix Output on the M80 or whatever Presonus you used? I would almost send you my MP20 so you could hear a working one....

Gitchoo a Brick sometime to check out too. Whether borrowed or bought. Surely even you could use an extra utility pre somewhere? If nothing else you could use it as a DI or for your talkback mic or something. One great use is the "guitar thru" jack to plug a guitar straight in, and then run a cable from the "thru" jack to the amp input. I don't see a lot of other pres doing this for some reason. It makes it easier to get a track of DI and a track of miked amp without going through a separate splitter.

Kurt Foster wrote: I think that the pres in most small mixers and the budget pres are all much better than the ones offered in the past. The RNP and PreSonus are perfect examples of this ... they are IMO close, but no cigar. I feel these types of pres all have more in common, than not ... and I lump them all together. To me they are like a car that can't make a left turn. Can you get from here to there with it? Sure ... but you may need to drive in a circle if you need to make a left turn.

Perhaps the difference in how we all view these questions is the crux or the matter. I see things in very sharp contrast, black and white with very few shades of gray while perhaps some of you prefer to mull over the finer points. That's why I bang out mixes in 3 hours while other take 3 days and why I use processing while tracking and other want to wait until mix to make the decisions. Of course, I think my approach is the correct one.

I do not think that any of the pre amps mentioned here are really terrible. I do think that all pre amps that (1) do not have super adequate power supplies and (2) are built using surface mount technology and miniaturization, tend to lack sonic punch, headroom and the ability to handle phase and bass propagation issues. If you like that sort of thing, the RNP and PreSonus type pres are the ticket for you.

Additionally, I like pres that use transformers and circuits that add texture and a sonic signature because I mostly produce Blues, Country and Rock "POP" music and because I grew up listening to records made with that kind of stuff, so of course I have been "conditioned" to think that's what sounds good.

So all the sonics aside and to get the thread back on topic, there is still one issue I have with the PreSonus pres in general that is a deal breaker. I am not sure what causes it and when I asked the guys at PreSonus about it, they could not explain it either. This is the inability of the PreSounus pres in some scenarios, to drive inputs much past -12db (digital scale) when operating at +4 pro levels. At that level the strain on the pre was very obvious. For it to be clean sounding, levels of -17 dB were more in line. I find this to be unusable IMO ... All my other pres can hit 0dB without breaking up and I like to track hitting peaks of about -6dB (digital scale). This keeps me from having to "normalize" tracks or boost volume on every channel on the DAW, which in turn keeps my system running clean. When a DAW has to boost volume across 24 or more channels at mix, your asking the processor to do a lot of extra math which in turn has its cost, usually resulting in mixes that can be ragged and harsh sounding with a loss of dimension and depth.

Kurt------I recieved my Presonus a couple of days ago,and Im happy with it for the time being-------seeing as how Im new to recording Im learning on a week to week bases,please dont get me wrong----I feel that some of my recordings deserve merit,and I feel Ive done a good job with what I have at hand,but Im sure that in time,Ill see what youre talking about,and I can bet you that before the year is up-----I will own a Seb!-it may be a single channel----but by George---Ill have one! 8-)

Are you sure you weren't using the Mix Output on the M80 or whatever Presonus you used? I would almost send you my MP20 so you could hear a working one....

Thanks, that's nice of you. You asked that before I think and I forgot to reply ... Yes, it was an M80. No I wasn't coming out of the mix outputs ... I had all 8 pres patched to the inputs of my Alesis AI3's ... I also checked to make sure I didn't have the bus switches engaged as I heard that could suck gain.

Gitchoo a Brick sometime to check out too. Whether borrowed or bought. Surely even you could use an extra utility pre somewhere?

I don't believe in "utility pres". It's either good or bad ... (remember no gray areas?). But "The Brick" looks to be made of the "stuff" I would categorize as a "real mic pre" and as such, has peaked my interest. Especially because I am hard pressed for something to recommend to people who can't afford Neves or APIs. I will be trying to get one from GT to review as soon as I get the HM-1 mic review finished. I think I am getting a Sebaton "Thorax" soon as well ...

One great use is the "guitar thru" jack to plug a guitar straight in, and then run a cable from the "thru" jack to the amp input. I don't see a lot of other pres doing this for some reason. It makes it easier to get a track of DI and a track of miked amp without going through a separate splitter.

I'm the first to say it's not the only approach but I always make decisions as I track. I am lazy and I hate having to wade through all of that stuff when I mix. So I make the calls as I record. Later if I hate it I re record the song. It is very common for me to do a pre production demo before I record something "for real". Sometimes I get lucky and the demo ends up as a "keeper". So if I want an amp sound I use an amp. If I want a direct sound I go direct, but I almost never do both (on electric guitar. Bass at times can be a different story).

Reading through the posts its hard to believe one can "hear" the difference in the endpoint of a single preamp on a vocal in a mix on someones home or car system. People are listening hapipily to MP3 and other "bastardized" versions of meticulously recorded music. Audio snobbery is alive and well...........

I would suggest the end user of any recording could not hear the difference between a $4000 pre amp and a Joe Meek on a vocal on an Ipod.......or in the car. People just don't concentrate soley on music enough. Its background music even when played through an MP3 player.

So really are engineers engineering for each other? Or are the studios hurting so bad that they have to claim certain expensive brands in order to entice big pocket customers....Is it a mine is bigger than yours thing even though we get to same place?

As well If as I read here it may take weeks or months to hear and be "spoiled" by the "difference" between spending hundreds or thousands of dollars...well I don't think a listener will spend weeks listining to the end result and come to the same conclusionsr.....I'm beginning to think the analogy is more like a Rolex vs Timex...They both keep excellent time in todays day and age......although the Rolex uses old technology....and both speak to the owners taste and how they want to "appear" to others. Pick a side.

I do agree with a previous post..in that its really all about performance and musical content rather than technically aural perfection. Many engineers do not think in those terms though so they deserve a pass I suppose.......But still many 20 and 30 year old recordings still sound great , even when compared much of today's work...

Today's recordings (home and studio) sound great...and yes for thousands of dollars more you can probably hear the gnat fart on the floor of the sound booth....but do you really need too?

kingfrog wrote: Reading through the posts its hard to believe one can "hear" the difference in the endpoint of a single preamp on a vocal in a mix on someones home or car system. People are listening hapipily to MP3 and other "bastardized" versions of meticulously recorded music. Audio snobbery is alive and well...........

I would suggest the end user of any recording could not hear the difference between a $4000 pre amp and a Joe Meek on a vocal on an Ipod.......or in the car. People just don't concentrate soley on music enough. Its background music even when played through an MP3 player.

So really are engineers engineering for each other? Or are the studios hurting so bad that they have to claim certain expensive brands in order to entice big pocket customers....Is it a mine is bigger than yours thing even though we get to same place?

As well If as I read here it may take weeks or months to hear and be "spoiled" by the "difference" between spending hundreds or thousands of dollars...well I don't think a listener will spend weeks listining to the end result and come to the same conclusionsr.....I'm beginning to think the analogy is more like a Rolex vs Timex...They both keep excellent time in todays day and age......although the Rolex uses old technology....and both speak to the owners taste and how they want to "appear" to others. Pick a side.

I do agree with a previous post..in that its really all about performance and musical content rather than technically aural perfection. Many engineers do not think in those terms though so they deserve a pass I suppose.......But still many 20 and 30 year old recordings still sound great , even when compared much of today's work...

Today's recordings (home and studio) sound great...and yes for thousands of dollars more you can probably hear the gnat fart on the floor of the sound booth....but do you really need too?

Ok 8-)

Reading through the posts its hard to believe one can "hear" the difference in the endpoint of a single preamp on a vocal in a mix on someones home or car system. People are listening hapipily to MP3 and other "bastardized" versions of meticulously recorded music. Audio snobbery is alive and well...........

I would suggest the end user of any recording could not hear the difference between a $4000 pre amp and a Joe Meek on a vocal on an Ipod.......or in the car. People just don't concentrate soley on music enough. Its background music even when played through an MP3 player.

You've missed the point entirely!

I don't give a rats ass what some punk with an I-Pod thinks of the vocal track or any other track for that matter. As you said he probably won't notice anyway.

When I record I attempt to capture the best sound possible. The only people I'm attempting to please are the artist and myself. If that sound requires a $2000 pre then thats what it takes. I don't record for the lowest common denominator (MP3) if you wish to go right ahead but don't call those who attempt to capture fine audio, snobs. Quality audio recorded with highend mic's and pre's will sound good on anything from Wilsons and Krells all the way down to the lowly I-Pod. If we follow your logic and record only for the masses (MP3's and car stereo) it would sound like crap on a quality system and what's the point in that.

They can't tell the difference, suppose everyone took that approach to their job? What if McDonalds sold horse meat as hamburger because you couldn't tell the difference. Would you like that?

Clearly great sound is a matter of taste. If a $500 pre does it for you so be it, just don't tell us that high quality audio isn't something we should aspire to.

When I record I attempt to capture the best sound possible. The only people I'm attempting to please are the artist and myself. If that sound requires a $2000 pre then thats what it takes.

Yes we differ here. I don't believe any audio source requires a $2000 pre. In fact I find it odd that many of the oldest expensive sought after "vintage" pres have specs that are noisier than todays prosumer pres....I guess "vintage " noise is good noise. Its marketing, flavor of the day and many buy into it. People seem to quote price spent with their gear as well..I find that incredably snobbish. When people say you cant get a good sound with less than $1000 preamps there is elitism going on. Thats simply not true. Perhaps on paper, in theory, but thats as far as it goes for me.

learly great sound is a matter of taste. If a $500 pre does it for you so be it, just don't tell us that high quality audio isn't something we should aspire to.

I agree there. High quality audio is something we should aspire to I just don't believe it it's result is always directly related to gear price, That road never ends once you get on it.

I do know People like to appear exclusive Price is the great seperator all walks of society....I happen to think audio is one of those areas. As price goes up the returns are largely diminished.......except for those who pay the piper. and Of couse they are going to feel a part of some exclusive club. and swear they can hear the subtities in a mix......and wonder how they ever lived without it.....Human nature.

I record young bands in club bands and original material. I charge them $600 or so for a CD, mastering, and artwork. $200 for vocals.

ITs not much an hour for me but I enjoy the process and the kids get a CD to sell at gigs and are always happy with the final result. They cannot afford to pay $50 an hour to record through $2500 pre amps and compressors on a full Protools set up. There are many fairly priced tools available to make a quiet, transparent, punchy CD.

I don't do it exclusively as my living because Im on the road a lot but there seems to be no end to the people who want the service I offer. I don't have to advertise. I can do this because I dont have the big expenses and "floating studio" with all the latest and greatest gear, Those studios are falling by the wayside and many have gone out of business. No thanks. I have no competition and the guys and gals get a good bang for the buck...If and when one gets a deal, the recod company will re record them...perhaps in your studio!

many of the oldest expensive sought after "vintage" pres have specs that are noisier than todays prosumer pres....

First, specs aren't everything. There a numerous ways to measure things and you cannot trust a manufacturer to be completely honest in this regard. They will always opt to publish specs that appear to be the better. Use your ears.

Second, there's more to it than noise. Really anything that has a S/N better than 120dB is pretty good. There are many pres that are several dB nosier than their counterparts but that still "sound better". Use your ears.

Its marketing, flavor of the day and many buy into it.

I agree ... but I think that applies more to the lower and middle ground, than to the high end. Once you are in the high end of manufacturing, you are providing product to a much more dicerning clientele that is capable of hearing the differences. These end users are much more likely and able to notice shortfalls and will scream "bullsh*t" much sooner than the average untrained home recordist.

When people say you cant get a good sound with less than $1000 preamps there is elitism going on .... I find that incredibly snobbish.

That is a very unenlightened point of view that smacks of envy and jealousy. Judging from your remarks later in your post I have to arrive to the conclusion that your primary objective in saying these things is to attempt to justify your not having better gear and to try to convince others you can provide comparable services to them for less money.

It is apparent to anyone who knows the subject (or at least to me) that you are completely ignorant of many of the issues involved.

There are pres available for under $1000 that do very well. Cost aside, there are different things that all combine to make a good pre amp ... power supply is primary. There is no way around this. This is from Fletcher in a previous post he made. I copied it off and have been quoting it quite often (sometimes in abridged forms) to help explain the problems with cheap gear. He is talking primarily about small mixers but it applies to all mic pres as well.

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.

I do know People like to appear exclusive Price is the great seperator all walks of society....I happen to think audio is one of those areas. As price goes up the returns are largely diminished.......except for those who pay the piper. and Of couse they are going to feel a part of some exclusive club.

Again this seems to me to be more envy and jealousy than anything else. Am I better person by nature of the fact that I have a lot of very good gear? I doubt that you would think so if you met me in person. My cloths are generally pretty old and worn. My sneakers are usually very beat and often have rips and holes in them. I often need a hair cut and my teeth aren't as good as they could be. If I weren't so fat, you might think I was a crank or crack addict if you met me on the street. I drive a 12 year old car. But I own a lot of nice gear. These are choices we all have to make. The ones I have made are for recording gear, because these are the tools of my trade. Priorities, plain and simple.

I agree that "As price goes up the returns are largely diminished". A pre that costs twice as much as another cannot be expected to perform twice as well. Sometimes the last 10% of "quality" can run the cost up 200 or 300%. That's the nature of things. No one said the world was fair.

I record young bands in club bands and original material. I charge them $600 or so for a CD, mastering, and artwork. $200 for vocals..... don't do it exclusively as my living because Im on the road a lot but there seems to be no end to the people who want the service I offer. I don't have to advertise. I can do this because I dont have the big expenses and "floating studio" with all the latest and greatest gear, Those studios are falling by the wayside and many have gone out of business. No thanks.

Gee, I wonder why those studios are all closing? Could it be that "scab studios" are undercutting them by providing inferior services at a lower cost? Could it be because of this the record labels are cutting budgets for artists to record?

40 years ago when the musicians union had power over the industry, a guy like yourself would find himself in an alley with a couple of broken kneecaps. The only problem with your approach is it never ends. What goes around, comes around. Sooner or later, it will be you that is on the receiving end. Then you will be the one squealing like a pig.

BTW, I provide recording services, remote and at my home studio starting at $20 per hour. When I had my commercial room in SF, I used to offer a 4 song demo pacakage for $300. I provided a 2" tape for the clients use and I multi tracked basics and overdubs, mixed and mastered the project in 6 hours.

I have very good mics, pre amps and compressors and a decent monitoring system. I now offer 72 track DAW and years of experience and background in music and recording. I do well even at those prices. You do not have to cheap out on your tools to turn a profit. In fact I think that is one of the most unimaginative business approaches, along with looking at labor. Instead of looking at bringing down the bottom line, which in the end only short changes the client and yourself, look to ways to increase the value of the product and services you provide. Part of this for myself has been to be more selective about the clients I choose. I submit that perhaps someone who isn't will to bear the expense of quality recording, shouldn't be recording in the first place or at the least, is not someone I would want to be involved with.

Kurt, In my brief time here on this forum I realize you are a respected and knowlegable poster. Every forum has its "stars." However I post in the Budget gear portion of your forum and am an advocate for those who feel slighted because they cannot afford the elite gear. But hey, I totally understand how someone who bought a $5000 watch feels at seeing another with a slightly less great $200 clone.

I am neither jealous nor envious as you describe because I have a choice. I can afford the best gear and choose not to purchase it. Big difference. I have friends with the top gear and those with lesser gear than my own. I have heard it all and feel there is a lot of hair splitting in the audio recording world anyway as evidanced by your next quote.

I agree that "As price goes up the returns are largely diminished". A pre that costs twice as much as another cannot be expected to perform twice as well. Sometimes the last 10% of "quality" can run the cost up 200 or 300%. That's the nature of things. No one said the world was fair.

I apologize for my attack on your sensabilities but I do not feel 10% more "quality" is worth 2-300% more money. I am sure I'm not alone in that arena. Those who need the bleeding edge are free to bleed the cash for the 10% result. I do not feel its a neccesary requirement to make a great CD. But thats just me. ..or is it? MAny big time high quality Studios are closing....theres your best evidance.

Gee, I wonder why those studios are all closing? Could it be that "scab studios" are undercutting them by providing inferior services at a lower cost? Could it be because of this the record labels are cutting budgets for artists to record?

40 years ago when the musicians union had power over the industry, a guy like yourself would find himself in an alley with a couple of broken kneecaps. The only problem with your approach is it never ends. What goes around, comes around. Sooner or later, it will be you that is on the receiving end. Then you will be the one squealing like a pig.

As you said................. "no one said the world is fair."

I'm not sure how to respond to this veiled attack and insult except to say we live in a capitalistic society where people make their own quality vs cost choices. Even Record labels. Perhaps they also feel 10% more quality is not worth 100-200% more on any level and as with many products. And maybe the real target of your agnst should be those very unions who ultimately failed to protect you and protected the incompetant instead . Perhaps thats why they are gone... You sound abit like the sad buggy whip makers at the invention of the automobile.

You do not have to cheap out on your tools to turn a profit.

Then why aren't KIAs as reliable as Toyotas? Many products don't subscribe to your logic. I'll tell you why. Because they cater to a different market segment.as do I

In fact I think that is one of the most unimaginative business approaches, along with looking at labor. Instead of looking at bringing down the bottom line, which in the end only short changes the client and yourself, look to ways to increase the value of the product and services you provide. Part of this for myself has been to be more selective about the clients I choose. I submit that perhaps someone who isn't will to bear the expense of quality recording, shouldn't be recording in the first place or at the least, is not someone I would want to be involved with.

..Now that smacks of the very elitism and snobbism,,, that you so take offense of being accused of!!!!. I'll take all of them in my "less than optimim quality" Studio.

I'm guessing by your own words the poor musicians should have NO options except for the very best. Thats sad indeed....and a touch elitist as well

This is where there is a huge gap in our rational. Im am not in the sole business of recording. I do it on the side as a service for those who cannot afford the very best. I get all my work by referral and have more than I can handle in my spare time. These are the very people you claim you don't want to be involved with anyway, In fact, I do not cater to nor do I want to attract clients who want to see the words "Pro Tools" or Neve on my gear list. No more than I want a woman who has to have a real Gucci bag. You can have all that work. I'm not competing with you at all......

But alas, the end result is that those artists will sell the same number of CDs regardless of what studio gear they are recorded with and make more profit for themselves. Yes the low rent Artists who willing accept a 20% less quality nevertheless sell the same amount of end product to their fans and therein lies the bug in your bonnet I suppose. Blame the manufacturers of great prosumer gear...not the endusers.

It is a good thing for thousands of poor struggling musicians you are not deciding who should or should not be looking to record or produce a CD. That reeks of elitism and probably should be posted in the Pro Gear thread where you can drool all over each others gear and the prices you paid for it.

By your skewed logic we should all be driving Mercedes Benzes or Toyotas because they are of better quality and those who cannot do so should be taking the bus..........Well I'm happy to drive a Ford in a world of BMWs....and I do not think I m missing anything....nor am I alone in that thought. What I have learned in this life is people who have or aspire to the very best believe everyone should think the same way...Many are content and comfortable in their mediocracy..and that my friend is not a sin. ...Hyndai sells a lot of cars to happy new car owners........and they go to the same places on the same roads as well.

Thanks for the measured response to my very provocative comments. I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to deal with someone who addresses the issues instead of the personalities. I have gained a new found respect for the person that originated it.

I do not disagree with anything you have said other that a Toyota is more reliable than a Ford I have a 92 Ford "Exploder" with almost 200,000 miles on it that looks and runs like new.

.. and

Kurt Foster wrote:
In fact I think that is one of the most unimaginative business approaches, along with looking at labor. Instead of looking at bringing down the bottom line, which in the end only short changes the client and yourself, look to ways to increase the value of the product and services you provide. Part of this for myself has been to be more selective about the clients I choose. I submit that perhaps someone who isn't will to bear the expense of quality recording, shouldn't be recording in the first place or at the least, is not someone I would want to be involved with.

..Now that smacks of the very elitism and snobbism,,, that you so take offense of being acussed of!!!!. I'll take all of them in my low quality studio.

I'm guessing by your own words the poor musicians should have NO options except for the very best. Thats sad indeed....and a touch elitist as well .

I don't look at that as being "elitist", instead as as being "selective" or "discriminating". As with my personal relationships, I prefer to choose, not be chosen.

I do not object at all to the concept of inexpensive gear being used by the financially challenged. In fact, those are my origins as well. That's why I feel I am qualified to speak to the issue. What I do object to strenuously is the idea that there is no advantage to the high end or the idea that in the budget or mid priced choices there is a significant difference. The improvement in quality kicks in at a certain threshold, where adequate power supplies and serviceable designs are attainable.

In the best of worlds, everyone would have access to the means of production but as you point out, we live in a free market capitalistic society.

I do not disagree with anything you have said other that a Toyota is more reliable than a Ford I have a 92 Ford "Exploder" with almost 200,000 miles on it that looks and runs like new.

I too am a happy Ford Explorer owner . I personaly owned both Fords and Toyotas and cannot attest to the Toyota as being more reliable but here is the argument:

It's all about perception (and in Toyota's evidant successful case history of reliability). People by nature pay up to "percieved" value sometimes before real value.

Perception in Audio is far more subjective and thus harder for me to to gage on a price /performance ratio.

In any case I truly enjoy reading your informative posts and I do respect if not always agree with some of your opinionsl.

Perhaps as the gap continues to close between "pro" and "prosumer" gear, the argument will be more focused towards technique and content rather than audio perceptions.

I read a post where someone claimed it took weeks to hear the difference with his new $2000 pre amp and how now he could not live without the piece. This was especially eye opening for me.

In any case we both drive Fords..............

Perhaps as the gap continues to close between "pro" and "prosumer" gear, the argument will be more focused towards technique and content rather than audio perceptions.

I read a post where someone claimed it took weeks to hear the difference with his new $2000 pre amp and how now he could not live without the piece. This was especially eye opening for me.

I agree that discussion of technique and content would be far more productive, especially in the budget forums where the interested parties would have much more to gain from it.

I also agree with the post you mention, that sometimes the improvement one gets from a great mic or pre becomes more noticeable as more hours of use are logged. This is because the user has a chance to see how differently things sit in the mix or combine in relation to the other elements. If they are experiencing a good pre for the first time, they may need to educate their ears a bit before they come to recognize the differences.

It is because of these factors that the manufactures of what I so fondly call "rack crap", can exploit the market and get away with it.

From what Ive read-----------kurt and king both own Fords----------now doesnt that beat all? :shock:
Ive been turning wrenches on Fords for about 25yrs (Dealerships) 8-) (certified,licensed,wall plaxs,the hole 9 yrds!).
Its good to know that not everybody takes to the cruel side when comments are made about recording gear (high end and low)---I could say alot more----but I feel i havent earned my strips yet in the recording bizz.
Anyway---------------------------------Hey Kurt---------------what do you think about trading a Seb---or maybe a Manley---------for work on youre Explorer? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
By the way------I drive a 72 GMC P/U---------shes my "baby" 8-)

kingfrog wrote: Reading through the posts its hard to believe one can "hear" the difference in the endpoint of a single preamp on a vocal in a mix on someones home or car system.

Yeah you can.....easily.

It has been my experience that most people can also, they don't know why it sounds better, but they do spot it.

Especially a whole mix fullofit. But please why don't we let this thread die. Too much bad bad vibes going on.