i think what you have will be fine. i see no reason the converters on the Focusrite would be a problem. Focusrite makes some very good converters, it's the mic pres on the cheaper stuff that is the compromise and in the end they are a vast improvement over a lot of stuff that was available in the past in that price range.

i'm not saying the Apollo or Antelope wouldn't be an improvement, only that the Focusrite should be just fine. unless you need more than 8 inputs at a time, i see no reason to upgrade just to record an album. i'm a big fan of the Apollo line. not for the conversion but for the ability to use UA's excellent plug ins while tracking with minimum latency.

Thanks Kurt, that’s encouraging. I’ve had a couple people tell me the Clarett is fine if, “all you want is a retro low-fi kinda recording”. LoL, like I said I just don’t have the experience to know. But I feel like the most recent stuff I’m doing sounds pretty clean with a lot of clarity in the capture. What I don’t want to happen is go through the whole process, get the master done, & find yep, all that work to make something that doesn’t hold up!

it does 196 ...... that's hardly what i would call "lo fi". again, it's the mic pres in the Clarret that are not as great as they could be. the problem with the pres is in how they are powered and their topology (smt). around here we tend to prefer mic pres with discreet construction and high volt rails. hi volt rails are difficult (actually impossible imo) to do with a 9 / 12 or 14 volt wall wart power supply. there's a lot of snobbery when it comes this stuff and imo unless you have a billion dollar room with a billion dollar console and billion dollar monitoring along with a billion dollar budget, it's pointless. just work on the songs and the performances. that all matters much more than what converters you use.

What you’ve got will be fine ;)

Thanks Kurt, Keith! Really appreciate the guidance! Like I said I think the quality of stuff I’m putting up these days is good. This years project is “new territory” for sure, and so many “experts” out there. Really value what people here tell me.
Cheers,

JazzHat, post: 456059, member: 50473 wrote: Like I said I think the quality of stuff I’m putting up these days is good.

well then, there you go! now make some music!!

At this level, you need to weigh up your microphones and pre-amps together. It would certainly make it easier for us to give more targeted comments if we knew what the whole analogue chain looked like.

Hi Bos, my vocal chain is outlined in first post. My other primary instrument (Electric guitar) I record 2 ways:

1. use the DI on front of the Grace m103 when recording “clean” guitar

2. for gain / lead guitar I plug my pedal board (used in my live performing) directly into mic-in on the back of the Grace. I have a Radial Stereo JDI on my live pedal board with XLR outs (I built my live board to accommodate PA, FOH, or recording deck)
   For other instruments I just mic into the Grace and every thing after that point is as described under the vocal chain in first post. I’m a solo artist so all my recordings to-date are built a track at a time. The album will include some limited session musicians but will be tracked the same way.

   It’s a really simple set-up but I want to make sure I get the quality piece right.

In that case, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I did take in that you were using a single mic and pre-amp chain for multitracking your playing in order to build a composite demo performance.

However, when it came to recording the album, I thought this would be done as a conventional jazz recording using multiple performers making a multitrack recording of a studio performance - probably several takes but no overdubs. In this scenario, you would naturally need several microphones and pre-amp channels running concurrently. Experience shows that for jazz work you get the most satisfying results if you choose these two elements on a per-channel basis to best capture the instrument or vocal on that channel, hence my comment earlier.

I suppose I'm not really a fan of using a single type of mic/pre-amp for everything, no matter how high the quality of the chain. That said, you've got an interesting mic in the Flea 47 - I've never used one, but have heard good reports of it, particularly for vocals.

Are you planning to use the guitar pedalboard output directly in your mix, or were you going to re-amp it?

JazzHat, post: 456052, member: 50473 wrote: Current vocal chain = Flea 47, Grace m103 pre (using both eq & the comp when tracking), using line-in on Focusrite Clarett 4 to to access the A/D converter

I think it's a good recipe. Using the line-in instead of the preamp in the front is the best thing with the clarett.
The only thing that could step up the quality would be to have a dedicated AD converter, for exemple the Mitek AD96 or similar.
But the difference would be slim.

I’ve tried re-amping (Mesa Boogie short stack) but prefer the result from the DI approach. All my current demos are DI. FWI, I do have several lesser mics and use those as well (but the Flea is go-to for my vocal). LoL, while my recording methodology may be unconventional is does simplify gear needs and I have no issues with channel bleed! . . . Oh, and I don’t think it really matters but I’m not a jazz player. Soft rock with an occasional touch of jazz / hint of country. I perform under my own name, not the JazzHat moniker.

So Bos, do you agree I can track a commercial sounding end product with the Clarett converter or should I upgrade?

pcrecord, post: 456065, member: 46460 wrote: I think it's a good recipe. Using the line-in instead of the preamp in the front is the best thing with the clarett.
The only thing that could step up the quality would be to have a dedicated AD converter, for exemple the Mitek AD96 or similar.
But the difference would be slim.

So I should take the UAD marketing hype with a grain of salt? They pretty much imply the Apollo series brings professional studio quality to your living room... Am I correct that while the mic pre might be better (slight? A lot?) than my Clarett, the converters would be pretty similar?

I know nothing about stand alone converters. . . Looks like Google Tonight!

the Apollo is a unique piece in that it does the plug in processing for the system rather than relying on the computer to do it all. the result is you can track with minimal latency while you print with plug ins running.

the pres in the Apollo are not better than your Grace pre .... maybe different but they both share the same level of "quality". different pres will impart different coloring (or lack of) ...... that said, many hit records of the past were recorded in studios where they used only the pre amps in a console ... (all the same pres). a lot of people think it's a good thing to have a selection of colors (or lack of) to use. if you want to get real picky about it, i suppose different hi volt rail pre amps may be of use with what you have but i do not see see it as an imperative. what you already have will work quite well imo.

your going to spend a lot of cash to get a better stand alone converter.

Thank Kurt! . . .I’m going to track the whole project with what I have. That’s a wrap!

And many thanks to everyone here. This is truely a unique forum - the experience & expertise and the willingness to share knowlege so many of you have acrued through years of work. . . I’m being sincere here, thanks for participating in this forum and for helping newbs like me!!!

Grace pre are very good and very clean.. I doubt any preamp included in an audio interface is better. As Kurt said.. different maybe.
I'd love to have some Grace pre.. I went the colored path with LA-610 and Focusite ISA.. Clean is good too ;)

JazzHat, post: 456067, member: 50473 wrote: So I should take the UAD marketing hype with a grain of salt? They pretty much imply the Apollo series brings professional studio quality to your living room... Am I correct that while the mic pre might be better (slight? A lot?) than my Clarett, the converters would be pretty similar?

I know nothing about stand alone converters. . . Looks like Google Tonight!

the appollo is a decent converter, with excellent dsp capability. the pluggins are good, as good as any other nice pluggin, its the realtime capability that makes the apollo valuable. conversion wise its not much of a step from MOTU, and proably in line with RME.

a noticeable step up from the clarett would probably be the above apollo, like an antelope, or mytek. i'd take a mytek instead of an apollo, or antelope, and just use my well appointed pluggin collection during mixing, or via a master/slave instead. especially doing jazz or acoustical music, where touch, feel, and dynamics are key, as well as air.

for 2-3k something like mytek gives you a world class engineering experience. (good enough for Sear Sound) UAD has all sorts of options, from the arrow interface, to the pcie cards, you dont need their interface for their pluggin power, arguably their strongest suit.

you cant upgrade to world class conversion easily as a dsp card, its not readily available at those price points. pluggins are widely available. fine tuned, performance driven, audio conversion is not. it holds re-sale better as well.

the DA side is vastly overlooked, and another reason the mytek or similar shines. you hearing more in your mixes, will totally, improve them, require less work in the mix. it will give truth to your monitors, and allow depth to your listening experience. no pluggins do that yet. i love pluggins, but i know you cant mix what you cant hear. i would venture a used apogee rosetta 8 would be another, less expensive improvement to the clarett.

the differences are somewhat subtle, but theirs no other way to get that sound, it contribute to that "thing" wonderful recordings have. your mixes always sound better when you hear better, and conversion, and everything, including desks and screens, leaves its mark on the sounds path out of your soul, through the air, into your ears.

will clarett get the job done, yes, are you, or anyone, likely to achieve amazing sonics with it, most likely not. so it really depends what your looking to do. last i heard mytek was due for the new iteration of the 8x192 around now. but that was over a year ago. you could always snag a used 192, and sell it after the albums, done. it will hold its value. its ten years old, and companies like UAD and focusrtie still havent caught up to, or surpassed the 192's specs. if i remeber correclty its like a 121db dynamic range, maybe 119? its up there.

it might be worth sending a song out to a pro mixer as well. then you or whoever can use that as a reference for the rest of the album. it might reveal some inaccuracies in your room, that would otherwise be doubled up, as a result of tracking and mixing in the same CR. youve got a boutique mic, a boutique pre, and a very semi-pro converter. especially for Jazz, i think it'd be a worthy ans sensible investment. presuming your monitoring and room treatment was handled.

cheers!

Thanks for taking the time to post Kyle. Will investigate the gear advice; & sending my tracks out is a great idea as an immediate next step! (Slaps forehead... tunnel vision is such a beautiful thing)
Many thanks!

JazzHat, post: 456059, member: 50473 wrote: Thanks Kurt, Keith! Really appreciate the guidance! Like I said I think the quality of stuff I’m putting up these days is good. This years project is “new territory” for sure, and so many “experts” out there. Really value what people here tell me.
Cheers,

Yeah, you have to be cautious of the sources when people are "advising" you...though we do have a pretty knowledgeable and experienced roster here on RO. Sound On Sound and RO are my two most trusted places when it comes to talking about gear, and the craft in general. ;)
So, this "demo" sound you are talking about...is this something you've noticed yourself? Or something you have been told by someone else?
Upgrading converters is never a bad thing ... And companies like Antelope, Apogee, etc., This is mainly what they do ( conversion), so sure, you might benefit sonically from an improvement in that regard. I've never used UAD, other than lightly at other studios, so I can't speak from any experience as to how their conversion sounds, though I can tell you from experience that just because a device "brags" about being able to sample at 192 ( or 96, or whatever) that doesn't necessarily mean that it's good sounding/quality conversion.
I recently added an Apogee converter to my system, replacing a Presonus VSL1818, and I can say, unequivocally, that my overall sonics have improved - and not just by a little or marginal amount.
I'm not knocking the VSL, it served me well, but I'd rather track and monitor through the Apogee at 44/48 than use the Presonus at 96.
You've got some pretty groovy gear, the Flea meds are something I've heard about and have been curious with, and the Grace pre you have is wonderful..., though I would echo what Bos said, about perhaps avoiding tracking everything through it; In my own experience, I've found that using different mics (and different pres) on a song lend a very pleasing contrast in textures. I have some pretty nice mics, some newer, some vintage, but I've even switched to a simple SM58 through my Focusrite ISA, for adding a background vocal, then switch to a 414 EB through an ADK AP mic pre for another harmony, and even swap out different transformers, too ( which the ADK allows), and then for another layer, maybe an SM7 or an RE20 for another vocal layer/track...
I've found it really adds a nice contrasting texture, and stops everything from having the same sonic fingerprint in the mix.
I haven't heard any samples of your music, but based on what you've mentioned having, I certainly wouldn't think that your sound would be " lo-fi".
Can we improve our sonics, either with mics, or pres, or converters? Sure. We can always improve... But you have to weigh out the cost versus the return, too.
Maybe one of the newer Neve "clones" would be an interesting addition to the "cleaner" pre you have now with your Grace? ...or perhaps an ISA One, or maybe a tube pre? It would expand the possibilities of your sonuc palette... But I can't see how those things are "deal breakers"...I think you're fine with what you have now to make a very good-sounding record; and so much of what we do is so subjective anyway.
Also - and I hate bringing this up but it is a fact - consider what your average music consumers listen through...I know, it can be frustrating, but in the end, your typical listener either likes the music or they don't... And none of those people are going to ask themselves what Mic pre you used for the vocal.
But I do get the neverending search and journey for better fidelity. I think we all do here.
IMHO
-D.

given the chain, the converters are still the weak link. an sm 57, and the stock pre's from the clarett, which are decent enough for 'variety', and they have the 'air' function. so two mics, two different pres, is plenty for a jazz album, as far as tonal variety. jazz is often minimal anyway as far as micing goes, so i dont think tonal buildup or stacking would be a strong consideration in this case. i could see pop/rock, where stacks of everything exist, but even then a grace is a very transparent pre. i venture to say that jazzhat has never heard what the grace and flea are capable of doing, since the ADDA is currently the weakest link in the chain, although the clarett is does have good specs in general.

with so many great recordings done on consoles, it shows that pre-amps can be good, not great, and can stack reasonably well, and get the job done of adding gain to the mic signal. i dont disagree preamps are an integral part of the sound, i do however think theres a lot of commercial push on them, and a lack of focus on the other tools we have available. i believe some of it is a hangover from when interfaces had very few, or no pre amps, and were very basic. ie, the mbox era.

i also think conversion is good enough now, that when you have the level of apogee, ect, it doesnt go out of style as soon as the next gen comes out. these are units that can stand the test of time, much more than two Generations ago.

i was interested to read my old m-audio FW1814, ($400/2006) had a 107db dynamic range, which is similar to the 108db dynamic range of the latest focusrite scarlett range priced $100-500.

the claretts are up in the 117-119, 3db or so less on the AD and DA side, than the 2010 era mytek 8x192. and right on par w the current motu line specs.

Intel is slowing chip generations down, and processors have reached a bit of a plateau in base frequency, so i wouldn't expect huge leaps in the next couple generations of conversion. probably 130+ db dynamic range, 384+ sampling rates, and a focus on immersive sound channel counts. not that a single spec, or specs alone determine, subjective quality, they do give a means to chart progress on a certain level, and detect rates of change.

if i see another 'neve clone' im gonna puke. lol seriously, its like illegal to make a peice of gear that doesn't reference some old design, and old parts that arent available anymore. perhaps its because i still cant listen to music online at cd quality, which was state of the art in the late 1900's. (1982).

sorry, rant over.

kmetal, post: 456104, member: 37533 wrote: with so many great recordings done on consoles, it shows that pre-amps can be good, not great, and can stack reasonably well, and get the job done of adding gain to the mic signal. i dont disagree preamps are an integral part of the sound, i do however think theres a lot of commercial push on them, and a lack of focus on the other tools we have available. i believe some of it is a hangover from when interfaces had very few, or no pre amps, and were very basic. ie, the mbox era.

Well, yeah.. except those consoles used had great Preamps in them...Neve, Harrison, SSL, Trident, MCI, etc.
The thing with today's home based studios, is that very few mid level rooms are using consoles anymore, either because of space limitations,, or because they can pick and choose the Preamps they want from a variety of different manufacturers, and these range from single channel stand alone to rack mount form, to bring those various sonic signatures into their workflows, be they single stand alone units, multi channel rack mount, or 500 Series modules.
I don't think it's ever a bad idea to have different pres available for options, whether it's the "grit" and full low end of a 73, or the " quick" sound of an SSL, the " punch" of API, or the signature "smoothness" of Harrison, right along side heavily colored tube Preamps, or much "cleaner" transformerless or tubeless models, like the Grace.
As far as the legal side of things, I have heard some whispering in the wind that Neve might have an"issue" with Heritage... just a rumour ( but from two separate sources who don't know each other) so it could all just be BS... Time will tell, I guess.
If it is true, then why Neve would single out HA, and not go after the other multitude of Neve "clones" such as BAE, or Golden Age, or Vintech ...is something I don't know.
FWIW
-d.

As an addendum...
I hear old songs now, from the. 80's, 70's, some even going back to the late 40's and 50's, that to me sound incredible and absolutely stand the test of time, through all the new technology and advances made over the years - and there's certainly been some incredible advancements made - but there are older songs with sonics made on old gear that still knock me out.
Nat King Cole's Unforgettable, or Mona Lisa,
sounds absolutely fantastic to me - of course musically and vocally because Nat was fantastic - but also sonically, and those recordings were done over 60 years ago. Kansas' Carry On Wayward Son sounded great to me when I first heard it...and it still blows me away in terms of the sound of that recording. Steely Dan's Aja', Fagan's Nightfly, Sting's Dream Of The Blue Turtles... are all still great sounding records, at least to me anyway.
Maybe those records were the perfect alchemy of talent, rooms, gear, arranging, ears and engineering skill... ?
It leaves me to wonder how many current popular mixes we hear now that will stand up the same way as older ones do, as the years go by. Don't get me wrong, I do hear some pretty great sounding stuff that is new... but I'm curious to know if those new things I do hear that I think sound good are the result of that "alchemy" that the other recordings I mentioned had ... or if it's also because of new technology that someone has figured out how to use in the optimal way...?
Just thinking out loud, I suppose.
-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 456106, member: 46114 wrote: I have heard some whispering in the wind that Neve might have an"issue" with Heritage... just a rumour ( but from two separate sources who don't know each other) so it could all just be BS... Time will tell, I guess.

better hurry up and get 'em now before they have to change something lol.

DonnyThompson, post: 456107, member: 46114 wrote: As an addendum...
I hear old songs now, from the. 80's, 70's, some even going back to the late 40's and 50's, that to me sound incredible and absolutely stand the test of time, through all the new technology and advances made over the years - and there's certainly been some incredible advancements made - but there are older songs with sonics made on old gear that still knock me out.
Nat King Cole's Unforgettable, or Mona Lisa,
sounds absolutely fantastic to me - of course musically and vocally because Nat was fantastic - but also sonically, and those recordings were done over 60 years ago. Kansas' Carry On Wayward Son sounded great to me when I first heard it...and it still blows me away in terms of the sound of that recording. Steely Dan's Aja', Fagan's Nightfly, Sting's Dream Of The Blue Turtles... are all still great sounding records, at least to me anyway.
Maybe those records were the perfect alchemy of talent, rooms, gear, arranging, ears and engineering skill... ?
It leaves me to wonder how many current popular mixes we hear now that will stand up the same way as older ones do, as the years go by. Don't get me wrong, I do hear some pretty great sounding stuff that is new... but I'm curious to know if those new things I do hear that I think sound good are the result of that "alchemy" that the other recordings I mentioned had ... or if it's also because of new technology that someone has figured out how to use in the optimal way...?
Just thinking out loud, I suppose.
-d.

you known that makes me realize how much ive taken the transfer of these magical recordings for granted. there's an art and some serious gear involved. format wars aside, ive heard some particularly amazing sounding doo-wop/motown era stuff in modern digital format. its truly stunning. and for the record, lol, im not a huge fan of that style in general. i appreciate it however, and from a technical standpoint its superb. conversion and transfers, arent all apples to apples. marcos DAW shootout, is a great example of that.

kmetal, post: 456108, member: 37533 wrote: better hurry up and get 'em now before they have to change something lol.

K, I do have a suspicion as to why Neve might be singling out Heritage...and it's not even a technical thing, either.
If you look at HA's logo, which is an "H",it appears to be eerily close to the classic Neve "N" logo. I don't think it's because of the color scheme, as BAE has that "look" too, in terms of the iconic Neve "blue/red" coloring, and even the rocker style pots ...but the "H" is very close in appearance to the Neve "N".
While this might appear to be a minor thing, legal battles have been brought forth and fought over things of much less consequence of importance.
I dunno for sure, it's just a guess on my part, I haven't heard this from another source or anything, but I was comparing those two logos yesterday after you and I talked here about it.

DonnyThompson, post: 456114, member: 46114 wrote: K, I do have a suspicion as to why Neve might be singling out Heritage...and it's not even a technical thing, either.
If you look at HA's logo, which is an "H",it appears to be eerily close to the classic Neve "N" logo. I don't think it's because of the color scheme, as BAE has that "look" too, in terms of the iconic Neve "blue/red" coloring, and even the rocker style pots ...but the "H" is very close in appearance to the Neve "N".
While this might appear to be a minor thing, legal battles have been brought forth and fought over things of much less consequence of importance.
I dunno for sure, it's just a guess on my part, I haven't heard this from another source or anything, but I was comparing those two logos yesterday after you and I talked here about it.

Not sure about the logo, but just look at the knobs!

Boswell, post: 456119, member: 29034 wrote: Not sure about the logo, but just look at the knobs!

I know, pal, but the thing is, BAE has the same type pots as well...
I'm interested to see if this litigation is in fact true - or if it's not just internet hearsay thought up by someone who spent 3 G's on a real 73, and who might be perturbed that the " sound" - or at least very close to it, is now available from various "clone" manufacturers for a third as much.

If it is true, it will be interesting to know where it lands, and the potential precedents it may set for the future, and for all the other knock offs that have become available in recent years... Because Neve pres and EQs are not the only models being "cloned".... LA2A's, 1176's, Sta-Levels, Fairchild's...to various API pres, EQs and comps, Pultecs, Nuemann and Telefunken mics, and many other "classic" gear models,... are all being copied, designed, and released, from companies like Warm and Klarke Technik to ADK, Bock, and Cathedral Pipes...
I'll definitely be watching. ;)

There have been several occasions over the last 20 years (at least in the UK) where manufacturers have won cases against competitors over copying the "look and feel" of a product. My memory is that the courts placed great emphasis on whether a customer was likely to have been misled into using or buying the competitor's product instead of the original. However, in the pro audio market, I doubt whether buyers are going to purchase a competing product unwittingly, no matter how close the resemblance.

We've entered the 'cover band' era of gear. there's that old saying, "amateurs borrow, professionals steal". maybe neve should lower their prices instead of throwing money at litigation. its a complete waste. heritage and neve are in two different market segments. nobody whos shopping heritage is considering neve, and vice versa. these knock offs sell themselves short. they could be very cool devices, but they market themselves as lesser/affordable versions of something else. BAE is viewed more almost as an alternative, since its aimed at people who want as close as it get to the Neve, without the vintage price tag and headaches. these knock offs would be just as well to market themselves as a unique new product, than some inferior alternative to a classic piece. i really feel bad for the average consumer, who is the victim of this at the end of the day. i respect companies like ART and Presonus for making solid, high value products, without tagging in some bogus classic gear reference.

here's what i say to neve and heritage. Grow up gents, your wasting our time.

-kyle

why doesnt someone rip off NS-10's, so we dont have pay 800$ for 30 year old, mediocre sounding speakers, that you cant get replacement drivers for?? it'd also be a good opportunity to get rid of the hideous white speaker cone, while they were at it. lol.

the last time i looked you could still get replacement drivers and tweeters for NS 10's i think it's the crossovers that are getting rare. i like the white paper cones. i like NS10's ... a set of NS10's , Auratones and some big assed Tannoy 12s .... how to get a mix that travels.

Kurt Foster, post: 456131, member: 7836 wrote: the last time i looked you could still get replacement drivers and tweeters for NS 10's i think it's the crossovers that are getting rare. i like the white paper cones. i like NS10's ... a set of NS10's , Auratones and some big assed Tannoy 12s .... how to get a mix that travels.

where did you see them? when i checked a few years a ago they were like $400 for a set of drivers, although my memory from then is foggy. did another company start making them for yamaha, or are they NOS drivers?

never heard big tannoys, i have heard big uries (813c/15" jbl coaxial). i like big main speakers. things sound huge even at low volume, and the sound stage is big enough to make imaging and depth come into reality.

not to derual the thread too far, but ive noticed passive speakers seem to give me better mixes than active, at all various price points. not sure if it's a coincidence or not.

On the topic of clones...
I suppose that it could be looked at from the point of view that every mic pre - including Neve - is a patent infringement on the very first mic pre. Lol. The same could be said for gain reduction and EQ...
Lol.
Seriously though...
Do I like the sound of Neve? Yes..a lot.... sometimes. It has its own thing going on. But would I want that sound on everything I do? Nope. Would I pay 3 large for a single channel 73 preamp? No. I'd have to have what I refer to as serious "F-U" money laying around. It's not that I don't see (hear) the attraction... I do. Same with API, UA, same with the other consoles and Preamps I've worked on over the years. They've all had their own vibes happening - even the Tascam 500 Series desk I mixed on a few times years ago at another nearby studio, for a client's release, had its own "thing" sonically that wasn't unattractive

I love having these pres ( and EQs) available in standalone form, or in a rack or 500 series format, because this allows so many sonic options, different textures for different things. But at what price?
I've been tickled pink by the Focusrite ISA, I've even been impressed by the Preamps in the Apogee...neither of those is priced above $600...
Would a real 73 up my game that much? Would it be that noticeable in the final product? Or would it just be an indulgence, allowing me to honestly say to clients ( and to myself) that "I use Neve gear" ...?

dvdhawk, Kurt Foster Boswell audiokid pcrecord @Makzimia kmetal ....
And... if I was able to do a blind test, using various 73 style pres, let's say a BAE, an HA, a Vintech, and compare those to a real Neve 73, with all things being equal in terms of the mic, signal, level, and in the same acoustic environment thru the same monitors...would I be able to pick out the Neve? At my age, with the typical loss of frequencies that will likely affect us all at some point? I'm dubious about my own ability to tell the difference. Could you, K? Could Marco, or Kurt, or Chris, or Bos, or Dave Hawk? I dunno, Maybe you could.
But at that point, you still need to consider the price, and take into consideration the other things we could invest in to improve our studio situations...3 Grand buys a LOT of acoustic treatment; it buys some very nice conversion, it could buy us some pretty sweet monitors, too, or could provide us with a pretty bad ass powerful computer to work on.
It's all hypothetical anyway, at least for me, because I don't have the luxury of having that kind of money to spend on one preamp...but even if I did, would I? The answer for me is, no.
IMHO ;)
-d.

I think as we grow older, and the industry and how we work within it changes. We make decisions on gear now for practical use for cost. What’s the most bang for my buck I can get. Solutions, as we all know, have grown a LOT especially within this last decade, and is escalating. When you cut through the hype, and yes nostalgia!, what works?.

My .022 for what it’s worth.

Tony

DonnyThompson, post: 456133, member: 46114 wrote: Would I pay 3 large for a single channel 73 preamp?

Honestly, I'm considering it. But it would be a channel strip with compression which should offer a different sound compared to the preamps I already have.
You may have guessed, the Millennia Origin STT1 would be my first choice. Why didn't I already bought it? For me 3k is 4k in Canada and I currently don't have that money...
One day maybe ...

DonnyThompson, post: 456133, member: 46114 wrote: would I be able to pick out the Neve? At my age, with the typical loss of frequencies that will likely affect us all at some point? I'm dubious about my own ability to tell the difference. Could you, K? Could Marco, or Kurt, or Chris, or Bos, or Dave Hawk?

I'm sure no one would be able to tell the diffence unless we had a lot of experience with an Original Neve. If I had a neve for the past 5 years and you'd put 4 other neve inspired pre against it. There is some chances I'd be able to tell. But since I don't know the neve sound well (other than the ISA which was designed by Rupert), I think it would be pointless to try.. Well, fun for sure, but not truth revealing ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 456133, member: 46114 wrote: On the topic of clones...
I suppose that it could be looked at from the point of view that every mic pre - including Neve - is a patent infringement on the very first mic pre. Lol. The same could be said for gain reduction and EQ...
Lol.
Seriously though...
Do I like the sound of Neve? Yes..a lot.... sometimes. It has its own thing going on. But would I want that sound on everything I do? Nope. Would I pay 3 large for a single channel 73 preamp? No. I'd have to have what I refer to as serious "F-U" money laying around. It's not that I don't see (hear) the attraction... I do. Same with API, UA, same with the other consoles and Preamps I've worked on over the years. They've all had their own vibes happening - even the Tascam 500 Series desk I mixed on a few times years ago at another nearby studio, for a client's release, had its own "thing" sonically that wasn't unattractive

I love having these pres ( and EQs) available in standalone form, or in a rack or 500 series format, because this allows so many sonic options, different textures for different things. But at what price?
I've been tickled pink by the Focusrite ISA, I've even been impressed by the Preamps in the Apogee...neither of those is priced above $600...
Would a real 73 up my game that much? Would it be that noticeable in the final product? Or would it just be an indulgence, allowing me to honestly say to clients ( and to myself) that "I use Neve gear" ...?

dvdhawk, Kurt Foster Boswell audiokid pcrecord @Makzimia kmetal ....
And... if I was able to do a blind test, using various 73 style pres, let's say a BAE, an HA, a Vintech, and compare those to a real Neve 73, with all things being equal in terms of the mic, signal, level, and in the same acoustic environment thru the same monitors...would I be able to pick out the Neve? At my age, with the typical loss of frequencies that will likely affect us all at some point? I'm dubious about my own ability to tell the difference. Could you, K? Could Marco, or Kurt, or Chris, or Bos, or Dave Hawk? I dunno, Maybe you could.
But at that point, you still need to consider the price, and take into consideration the other things we could invest in to improve our studio situations...3 Grand buys a LOT of acoustic treatment; it buys some very nice conversion, it could buy us some pretty sweet monitors, too, or could provide us with a pretty bad ass powerful computer to work on.
It's all hypothetical anyway, at least for me, because I don't have the luxury of having that kind of money to spend on one preamp...but even if I did, would I? The answer for me is, no.
IMHO ;)
-d.

Good post, Donny.

For me, a song that fits together well sonically is built from vocal/instrumental tracks that are all well recorded with each track having its own vibe. Of course the source sound is a big part of that, but the subtle differences come from the studio acoustics, microphones, pre-amps and converters used on each track. The differences that these make are as much a part of the overall sound as the individual quality of each track. The important point is that all the tracks may have different sonics, but they are all good.

You can look back at some of the great multi-track recordings from 30+ years ago, where the studio microphones were all plugged into inputs of one mixing desk, the mix captured on tape and (probably) the digital master made many years later from the analogue 2-track, and you can ask where are the track differences there? Well, although the variables were small in number, the best producers and studio hands knew from experience where to position the performer in the studio, what model of microphone to use for which source sound, and where to place it. That's about all they had to work with, but the best recordings from those days stand up against modern ones where almost everything in the recording chain can be changed.

pcrecord, post: 456135, member: 46460 wrote: Honestly, I'm considering it. But it would be a channel strip with compression which should offer a different sound compared to the preamps I already have.
You may have guessed, the Millennia Origin STT1 would be my first choice. Why didn't I already bought it? For me 3k is 4k in Canada and I currently don't have that money...
One day maybe ...

I'm sure no one would be able to tell the diffence unless we had a lot of experience with an Original Neve. If I had a neve for the past 5 years and you'd put 4 other neve inspired pre against it. There is some chances I'd be able to tell. But since I don't know the neve sound well (other than the ISA which was designed by Rupert), I think it would be pointless to try.. Well, fun for sure, but not truth revealing ;)

I've had the privilege of working with Neve gear several times over the years, based on that very limited experience, I can say that the Neve pres I used sound nothing like the Focusrite ISA Series. The ISA pres are actually quite clean in comparison to the inherent "grit" and very full low and lo-mid end of the Neve sound. The ISA is not entirely transparent ( then again nothing is) it does have its own subtle mojo, which could maybe be sourced in the Lundhal XFO, and likely other components, too...as well as the gain settings used, But it's not nearly as inherently colored as Neve pres are, which could also likely be sourced in part to the St Ives - and later, Carnhil - XFOs, and again, other components...
While Rupert was responsible for designing both the Neve gear and the ISA gear, they really are not the same in terms of sonic vibe... I'm only going on my experiences of the gear I've used and heard in the past...

Bos mentioned those older consoles...my instructor, mentor ( and still a dear friend and audio engineering source I turn to sometimes) was an engineer at Caribou Ranch in the late 70's and early 80's. They had a Neve 80 Series in their main room, and he mixed on it for several years. I used to pump him for info on his experiences on that desk, recording artists like Carl Wilson, Amy Grant, Dan Fogelberg, Kris Kristofferson... And he told me that they had certain inputs on that desk that they liked for certain things... That none of the channels sounded exactly the same, and that further, some sounded nothing like others did, even though it had the same preamp stage in each, model wise. The console had some built in sonic "drift" to various inputs. He said he could only wager a guess as to why that was...that perhaps it was age, or frequency of use, or heat, or even that some inputs had been driven harder than the others over time. He mentioned that they had certain channels on the desk that they liked best for vocals, or kick drum, or guitars, etc., and that this "drift" between channels lent to the vibe of the desk. He also told me that Neve EQs we're not really designed to tight tolerances or exact in their frequencies, either, and that sometimes a 200hz setting wasn't exactly 200 hz, in fact, it hardly ever was exact...that it might be more like 240 on one channel, where on another it might be closer to 180hz. Then again, Neve EQs we're never meant to be surgical, not like SSL was known for at that time, but that they were meant to be more "musical", and used with broader strokes...in short, designed to be adjusted by using one's ears instead of relying on an exact labeling of the settings visually.
He also mentioned what Bos said about mics ( Boswell ) , that they were constantly changing up mics...just because they had half a dozen various U47's didn't necessarily mean that they always reached for those first...they spent quite a bit of time matching the right mics to the right people and instruments. Greater attention was paid to the capture process in those days, I think, or at least that's what I took away from all the things he told me. I can say that he was generally not a fan of the "fix it in the mix" approach...this I know, because he took me to task several times when I tried to go there, LOL
I think that He was a pretty staunch believer of getting the tracks recorded as well as possible to begin with. I never got the impression that he was against using things like EQ or GR, or other processing during the mixing phase, to the contrary be used to mention that he really like the NEVE EQ a lot, moreso than the "surgical" type of EQ that SSLs were offering in those days...
So, the tolerances on those older desks weren't nearly as tight as they are these days,with both analog and digital mixers. IMO, it was the lack of exacting tolerances across the desk that lent to the further magic and vibe of them. ;)

FWIW.

Those times were not that long ago! The few days I spent as Assistant Engineer on a session in Abbey Road Studio 2 in the late 1960's opened my eyes to what was (at that time) necessary in setting up for a recording. It was all drawn out a bit, because the Producer specified where he now wanted the mics positioned, and the session engineers would re-position them. However, if he wanted the mic changed for another type, you had to summon a man in a white coat who would unplug the mic you were using, take it back to the Stores, come back in a while with the different one, plug it in, check that it worked, and finally got the Producer to check the serial number and then sign for it. The whole operation could take the best part of an hour, and was repeated in reverse if the Producer thought the original mic gave a better sound for that particular performer.

Do I miss all that? In a way, yes. It certainly taught me how things should sound.

Boswell, post: 456138, member: 29034 wrote: Those times were not that long ago! The few days I spent as Assistant Engineer on a session in Abbey Road Studio 2 in the late 1960's opened my eyes to what was (at that time) necessary in setting up for a recording. It was all drawn out a bit, because the Producer specified where he now wanted the mics positioned, and the session engineers would re-position them. However, if he wanted the mic changed for another type, you had to summon a man in a white coat who would unplug the mic you were using, take it back to the Stores, come back in a while with the different one, plug it in, check that it worked, and finally got the Producer to check the serial number and then sign for it. The whole operation could take the best part of an hour, and was repeated in reverse if the Producer thought the original mic gave a better sound for that particular performer.

Do I miss all that? In a way, yes. It certainly taught me how things should sound.

Bos, you always have the coolest studio stories! :)

DonnyThompson, post: 456137, member: 46114 wrote: I've had the privilege of working with Neve gear several times over the years, based on that very limited experience, I can say that the Neve pres I used sound nothing like the Focusrite ISA Series. The ISA pres are actually quite clean in comparison to the inherent "grit" and very full low and lo-mid end of the Neve sound.

Good to know !

DonnyThompson, post: 456133, member: 46114 wrote: I've been tickled pink by the Focusrite ISA, I've even been impressed by the Preamps in the Apogee...neither of those is priced above $600...

the ISA is a 'based on' lol, a world class, no expense spared console, it better be good. the isa is a really nice piece. the pre amps in the apoggee are probably $50 pre's when you consider all the other components in the unit. apogee makes very usable pres.

DonnyThompson, post: 456133, member: 46114 wrote: Would a real 73 up my game that much? Would it be that noticeable in the final product? Or would it just be an indulgence, allowing me to honestly say to clients ( and to myself) that "I use Neve gear" ...?

maybe not, but a pair of BAE's just might for the same price. if you were doing alot of live drums and guitars, you and your clients would probably get more use out of a 1073. with a punchy pre, and the eq section, i say it would make a noticeable difference in your product. a 36month finance on the the purchase could make it make sense pennywise.

DonnyThompson, post: 456133, member: 46114 wrote: And... if I was able to do a blind test, using various 73 style pres, let's say a BAE, an HA, a Vintech, and compare those to a real Neve 73, with all things being equal in terms of the mic, signal, level, and in the same acoustic environment thru the same monitors...would I be able to pick out the Neve? At my age, with the typical loss of frequencies that will likely affect us all at some point? I'm dubious about my own ability to tell the difference. Could you, K?

without a doubt i could tell the difference among them, but i've only worked with calrec, i've never used a real neve. even the online ewwtube comparisons from places like soundpure clearly demonstrate the difference. sometimes the old sound of the neve is better, sometimes the modern sound of the BAE/ect, is preferable. its not just in the high frequencies, where the sonic footprint is, so i dont think hearing loss would make them indistinguishable. top end isnt the neve strong point anyway imho, its the punch, and the way the mid range sits. I have little doubt that any of us here couldnt tell the difference, and could probably guess the real neve a fair amount of time. i mean than in no way eletist.

DonnyThompson, post: 456133, member: 46114 wrote: But at that point, you still need to consider the price, and take into consideration the other things we could invest in to improve our studio situations...3 Grand buys a LOT of acoustic treatment; it buys some very nice conversion, it could buy us some pretty sweet monitors, too, or could provide us with a pretty bad ass powerful computer to work on.

exactly. this is why i hate 'pre amp fever', which runs rampant in ads, and engineers minds. i've always said compressors and eqs can make a far more dramatic improvement to recordings, than a million pre amps. for 3 K you can get a BAE pre, an apogee rosetta, and a mojave tube mic. its not that pres arent important sonically, they are just oversaturating the market. remember those consoles often had eqs, hpfs, comps, auxes, summing, huge PSU's, ect. so theres alot to it beyond just the sonics of the pre amp. given mics, eqs, pre's, and comps, i feel like pres have the least sonic footprint, but they do determine whats feed further on down the chain.

pcrecord, post: 456135, member: 46460 wrote: Honestly, I'm considering it. But it would be a channel strip with compression which should offer a different sound compared to the preamps I already have.
You may have guessed, the Millennia Origin STT1 would be my first choice. Why didn't I already bought it? For me 3k is 4k in Canada and I currently don't have that money...

channel strips really add a ton of verstility to your whole gear collection, particularly if you can patch into sections separately. im a fan of channel strips.

DonnyThompson, post: 456137, member: 46114 wrote: That none of the channels sounded exactly the same, and that further, some sounded nothing like others did, even though it had the same preamp stage in each, model wise. The console had some built in sonic "drift" to various inputs. He said he could only wager a guess as to why that was...that perhaps it was age, or frequency of use, or heat, or even that some inputs had been driven harder than the others over time. He mentioned that they had certain channels on the desk that they liked best for vocals, or kick drum, or guitars, etc., and that this "drift" between channels lent to the vibe of the desk.

theres a company who modeled every channel of an ssl for their pluggin, for this very reason. maybe it was softube? you also have to account for the maintenance, or lack of, over time. its not like the console got a complete overhaul each time something blew. its like changing your car tires out one at a time, instead of in sets. The reality of a commercial studio, and the pictures in the promos, often tell two very different sides of the story.

in general to me, the question of 'worth it' for gear of this build quality is usually justified by the 50+ year life span of a well designed piece of gear, and the otherwise unattainable qualities it offers. they often hold or appreciate in value, while paying for themselves during use. most of my personal gear regrets with gear lie in buying sub par stuff, wasting money, and using good gear that wasnt properly kept up due to laziness. you live with these recordings for a long time, and considering where else thousands of dollars go each year, high quality gear is perfectly justifiable creatively and financially, for any serious hobbyist and beyond. i wouldn't want to underplay the role of good gear just because its out of my budget, and since the designs are quite old by now, much of the cost is sourcing parts and testing tolerances. theres millions of people around the world who would be capable of assembling one of these 'inspired by' units diy style, and have an excellent unit for 30% of the commercial cost. where there is will, there is a way. you rarely see clones referencing anything about their psu sections, which always makes me wonder. not that its enjoyable to see the additional cost for it on BAE stuff, but its comforting to know its been thoroughly considered by the company, as important.