Preamp Observation: advantages to clean, advantages to color

I've used many preamps over the years that I've been recording and mixing, and while there are certainly still parts to the craft that I'm still learning - things I'm not sure of but pick-up on, as time passes and technology advances - and I have made a particular observation ... about preamps.

The observation is that there is no such thing as an end-all/be-all preamp that will suit every possible scenario.

I've worked with very nice ( and very pricey) preamps, that have offered beautiful character and color - for certain songs, and I've used pres that are far more transparent that absolutely have their own place as well.

I've worked with Neve 1073's, SSL G Series, MCI, API ( along with others), and those preamps all have a particular individual character to them that can make things really sparkle and shine, or pop out in a mix. These all offer a particular character that can sound incredible - for certain things.

I've worked with both tube and transformer-based preamps... these too have their own character that can be great - for certain things. The ADK AP-1, the Focusrite ISA, and other similar stand-alone tube and XFO-based preamps can be awesome - for certain things.

I've also worked with "cleaner" circuits - Millennia, Grace ( just recently in fact), Presonus, and other pres that are known more for their transparency than they are for any real noticeable "character". Their character is that they don't have any, or very little. These too can be incredible, and often perfect choices - for certain things.


( side note to @Kurt Foster: I agree with your position that there really is no truly transparent preamp, that anything with circuitry is going to impart something to the signal, to a lesser or greater extent, and for better or worse. I will also concede that microphones differ in this regard and can greatly affect the tone as well )

Two days ago, I was tracking a lead vocal to a song I wrote, and I was using an AKG 414 (a P48 series, circa 1981, instead of my usual 414 EB, as I had loaned it to a good friend for a few days), and running it through an ADK AP1 pre - which I've really grown to love - using a Lundhal 1538 XFO on the input ( this is the same XFO that Rupert Neve used in the now-famous Focusrite ISA Studio Console, and which has been used in many mic preamps since) and, I was using a John Hardy 990c on the output stage.

Normally, this is a great gain chain - for my voice. While I have used various combinations in the AP, I seem to always gravitate back to the Lundhal/Hardy combo, because I love the way it sounds.

It took me less than 30 seconds of listening to playback to realize that this particular gain-chain wasn't going to work for this song. I then borrowed a buddy's Focusrite ISA One, and recorded a track with it. While it was nice, and had a great vibe, it still wasn't what I was after for this song.
I eventually nailed down that I was after a more "modern" vibe on the vocal... and in the end, the gain-chain that worked the best was the Presonus 1818VSL. It was clean, crisp, bright, modern sounding ... and it gave me exactly what I was looking for - for this song.

The summary to this, is that IMO, there is no such thing as an end-all/be-all mic preamp, (just as there is no end-all/be-all mic).

It's not my intention to start a debate or argument about whether or not "transparent" or "color" is better or worse. My opinion is that both have their place(s). It's all about what sound you are after at the time, which will end up working the best in the mix... or, context.

These are just observations that I've made over time.

Thoughts?

 

Many won't ever come close to understand half of this. The sound of the preamp used is very important even if subtle.
Choosing one accordingly to the vibe of the song is the best way to choose. Even if a preamp makes a voice sound better, it doesn't meen it works in the song. The sound must imbricate well in what the song already has.

In regard of this, I think this is why having a selection of preamps is better than having 16 of the same one.
Many will envy you Donny! Being able to recognise what a song needs and having the courage of acting on it, isn't givin to every recordists. It takes a good knowledge of our gear and instinct !

My preamp count goes like this
2x UA LA-610, UA 4-710, 8x Focusrite ISA, 4x RME FF800.
I do have just what it takes to track a live band and it sounds very good.
Nonetheless, from time to time, I think about changing one of my LA-610 for a ISA 430 or a millennia channel strip.
My other option is to get at least one good external comp to use with one of the ISA preamps.
The only thing breaking me is the money. If I get enough project this year, I'll make a move

 

Great post, Donny, with a topic that is very rarely dealt with in an objective fashion. It's a welcome contrast to some other audio forums where you get folks raving about their particular pre-amp, usually in order to justify what they have spent their money on.

Choosing the right pre-amp for a particular occasion is a multi-dimensional problem. You start with the voice, the material, the other performers on the track, and the room. After those, there are the technical aspects: the microphone, the pre-amp, the converter (if separate).

It's where experience comes in. What did you use last time for a similar sound source? Did it work out well? What can you learn from the previous recording sessions to apply to this one?

A few years ago I recorded a female vocalist who wanted an old-fashioned sound. That was the limit of the specification. A soon as I heard the character of her voice, I was convinced that I should use a ribbon mic (Beyer M500) on her, but the next question was which pre-amp to use to go with it. I tried my API 3124+, and it sounded too gooey. I tried a DAV BG1, and it fizzed with the ribbon. I tried what was then the new Audient Mico, but it was a little clinical. I tried a few others, but ended up with my Neumann V476Bs that I had just finished racking up. She was impressed.

Getting that sort of reaction from a performer is worth all the experiment and attention to detail. Note that all these pre-amps that I rejected are excellent units and sound great with the right mics on the right sources.

 

sometimes i wonder if we all get too distracted by all the choices we have. i can't imagine the fabs sitting around trying different mics and pres. and that was Abbey Road, one of the best studios in the world then and now. what they had is what they used. so much depends on how gear is used but the main thing for me has always been what was being recorded and why it was being recorded.

 

I once recorded bands with only a soundcraft mixer and cheap converters. When it sounds bad, it's a lot more distracting

 

Actually, at the time, there wasn't all that much choice for them to make. Telefunken U47's, Neumanns. maybe an AKG C12 here or there, but their preamp gain-chain didn't really change much... they were using EMI's consoles, which early on were tube... it worked for them ( and it did sound good) but it's not like they really had a whole slew of mics and pre's to choose from.

I dunno, I could be wrong... but knowing their leaning towards experimenting with different musical and sonic textures, I'd wager that if they did have the multitude of choices that we have today, that they would probably spend plenty of time trying them.
They - and Sir George and the AR engineers were a pretty experimental group, even to the extent of having to wait until after-hours to be able to mic a kick drum up-close, because if one of the bosses had walked in during the day and had seen that, somebody was gonna get reamed out, maybe even fired.

They had no problems using brass bands, Moog snyths, Mellotrons, entire orchestras for a random chromatic climax that lasted less than 20 seconds ( A Day In The Life), working with long tape loops ( Mr. Kite), and even experimenting with a mic that was placed in a sealed bottle and then submerged in water for Yellow Submarine... I think it's pretty safe to say that they'd have probably basked in all the choices we have today, especially after they'd stopped touring and decided to just work in the studio.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. We'd have to ask someone like Geoff Emerick about that...

I'm sure you're right, but my observations go back to long before digital was the standard.

 

Here's another observation, Chris - and if I'm wrong, I'll be glad to eat my words... and wash your car for a year... I'll even cheer for the Edmonton Oilers for a season if you want.

I think that these days, by and large, you are after an "honest" sound, an organic sound. You like to put the listener in a natural-sounding space, that sounds as if they are right there, listening to a live band, or a piano player, or a bluegrass trio, (or whatever).

Your posts have reflected this often, that you are seeking honesty to your recordings and mixes, that you like things "natural". I think Marco ( @pcrecord ) tends to lean this way as well.... AND THERE'S NOT A THING WRONG WITH THAT.
There is absolutely a particular talent and a skill to capturing performances that way, of putting the listener right there. And you ( and Marco) are really really good at it. And you're not alone, either... hardly. If you listen to any James Taylor stuff from the past 15-20 years, there is a beautiful natural and organic vibe to the sound of his records. The same with Adel ( at least from what I've heard from her)... but it's not an integrity that is used just for acoustic or other organic instrumentation stuff.
I think that bands like The Spin Doctors, Disturbed, and even The Stones tend to sound best when they are captured that way. I think that the Traveling Wilbury's also leaned this way as well.

But... there are often times where I'm after a super-natural sonic vibe, of putting the listener into a space that isn't "natural" or organic...

Albums like DSOTM, Pepper, The Wall, Alan Parson's various recordings...( I've heard some modern stuff like this too... I heard a piece no too long ago, I think the song is called "Chandelier" (?))
These are sonic tapestries that really aren't "natural" at all, and there are times I like to mix this way, and sometimes, even to produce this way.

There are also artists who go both ways - Tom Petty can put out some straight ahead, no frills rock and roll ( I Need To Know, Here Comes My Girl) but he can also occasionally dabble into the supernatural as well ( Don't Come Around Here No More).

Again, I think it's all about context. Maybe I'm working on a mix that is very organic, and I'll only use one slight reverb to put it all into the same space - but that doesn't mean that there aren't times where I might have a couple different verbs happening, or a delay/echo, or instrumentation that is obviously synthetic.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you or calling your methods into question, "natural" and "organic" are great. And there's no doubt that there is a particular skill set to doing it right.

....But there are those times when supernatural is fun too.

IMHO of course.

 

Then I stand corrected.

On that note, I'd love to hear what you are doing these days. It's been awhile.

 

I think it's cool that you are playing again.
It's about time.

 

I wasn't implying in this post that your sound was "clean". I was implying that your preference for sound was "organic", and "natural". There can be really edgy sonics, dirty textures, and still be "natural".

You've said it yourself many times in the past, that you like to capture and place the listener in a situation that is natural, and conducive to the natural performance style, and for blues and rock, that style is very organic. It's a live feel. You've mentioned dialing in a space on your Bricasti, and applying that to the whole mix, as opposed to using different types of time-related processing in the same mix.
You've also said that you don't care for "stacked vocals", and that there are times where you have actually degraded the sound of hi-res samples to match the sound of those live instruments that are more oriented towards an organic and "edgier" sound.
If I've inferred that you like "clean", that wasn't what I meant. I meant that you like ( or at least you did like at one point) as straight-of-a-line capture as possible, using your Millennia and good converters.

And you did go through a phase sometime back where you said you preferred "transparent capture". This was around the time where you stated that you liked to capture through a transformer-less and tube-less pre, that high voltage rails gave you the "big" sound you liked, and that you discovered that you didn't need much of the gear that you had spent your career accumulating, because you could accomplish completely ITB what used to require analog gear... If your views on that have changed, then that's cool.

I never said you didn't like to dirty things up.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative pal, or put you on the spot... it's just that you've changed your tac in your workflow a few times over the past couple years, and sometimes it's hard to keep track of what you are doing and thinking.
Then again, we're artists... so it's our eccentric license to change our minds at a moment's notice without providing an explanation. LOL
I certainly didn't mean to offend you.