mic and mic preamp question

[ThatSoundsGood]

I think we can consider some mic preamp like part of the sound processing.
The infortunate part is that I can't find measurements anywhere to describe this "sound" you're speaking about, fir the main reason I can't find any serious "preamp with sound" measurements at all.
I can measure my Millennia HV-3C, and it's pretty transparent, powerfull, and has a wide, flat, impedance forgiving, frequency spectrum (which I expect could translate in some "speed" or "attack" not being smoothen ir compressed.
I can also measure RME interfaces, luke the excellent 12Mic I'm happy to have now in my rack (now that's a 21st century preamp !).

But Neve and the likes, nada.

The only think I have is a Focusrite Liquid 4Pre, wjich is a pretty good, flat, transparent preamp + ADC that includes some impedance adaptation and convolution engine to emulate some of the most famous preamps.

And that's pretty much the point today:
Similarly to the DAC topic, where "audiophiles" are in awe about the soecial "sound" of some DACs... which, of course, measure as disasters, because that's the only way to make them different...
The whole point is: why not to have all those devices just do what they are supposed to do: a DAC, an ADC, a mic preamp, an amplifier,...
And recreate this sound much more easily with some VST or other software plugin in the DAW or on the streaming software. In a computer.
At will.

This is a very idea to the Kemper guitar head idea: everything, including the amp and speaker is made flat, and the effect -and that can be oretty complex- is recreated in the box, un software, with a proper convolution.
Or just like those "vintage film" effects you may add to your photo in post prod.

Isn't that a more sensible way to go in 2023 ?

This is excellent and it is certainly the debate today that I hear a lot.
There is a clear difference between audiophiles and professional engineers. I find a lot more "snake oil" in the audiophile world because you're dealing with people who don't have as much of a trained ear. Many of the DAC's measure poorly and people generally like the distortion that is added.
But it's different when we're talking about recording equipment and professional engineers who spend a lot of their lives finding what sounds better in what situations. We're not concerned with how a preamp measures. We're concerned with how it sounds to us and how it helps something fit into a mix. We experiment with "in-the-box" DSP plug-ins and compare them to analog processors. Spoiler alert; the analog stuff usually wins although the digital world just keeps getting better.
Your question of "why don't those devices just do what they're supposed to do?" is a great. But what we find is that the inconsistencies are the gold. I have run mixes through Pro Tools in the digital world and compared them to mixes that ran through an analog console. Nothing was changed except it was run through a console to get everything down into 2 channels. The mix in the console is pretty much always better and the difference is staggering. What causes that? The inconsistencies in the console. The capacitors that aren't quite working up to value. The fact that no two transformers are exactly the same. The distortion caused by taper faders. When these devices don't do exactly what they're supposed to, we get great results (sometimes we get bad results if it's too far off). The analog world is inconsistent but beautiful to the ear.
Now, this is the opposite of the hifi world where we are usually striving to recreate the music without coloring it.
My beef here is that the audiophile world and the professional engineer world is very different. Audiophiles are easy to fool. Pro Engineers are not. Pro Engineers have been working with phase, DSP, EQ and the like for many years. Pro Engineers don't just listen to music in their house or in their car. Pro Engineers are comparing microphones, preamps and all of the equipment they can get their hands on in many different situations. It's just a different level of experience.

 

[Ifrit]

Could you measure it ?
Ideally with a multitone at 2 or 3 different levels ?

I could run some files through it next time I’m at that studio, and capture result, but I don’t have measurement tools otherwise and neither has the studio. I personally don’t care for ‘mojo’ about those preamps, but choosing between them and harsh SSL pres in Duality Delta, I’d rather have 1073 for saxophone.
Haven’t heard or used the 12Mic, but preamps in UFX, for instance, to me were kinda noisy. Recording celtic harp with those was an unpleasant experience.

I do like my HV-3D and some others that I have.

Audiophiles are easy to fool. Pro Engineers are not.

This is not entirely true. Most of pro engineers are just as easy to fool as audiophiles. Yes, with all the experience they possess. The myths in pro audio are plenty and some of them are even more ridicoulos than straight plain audiophoolia. The debate over DSP based systems vs native ones, that continues to this day, for example. And since they “are pros”, a lot of engineers don’t want to do even basic non sighted shootouts.

 

[robwpdx]

I'd like to get ASR's take on a couple questions. I'm setting up a small home studio for my own use (male vocals, midi + daw, guitar). I am looking at mics right now.

First, it seems a lot of people are shilling dedicated mic preamps as the "best upgrade to your mic." Are mic preamps somewhat the snake oil of the mic industry? It seems quite a few are really sold as colorizers, which I guess is OK as long as one knows that's what it's being bought for. I haven't seen anyone selling rhodium mic cables at least. I have a Focusrite solo and Motu ultralite mk5. I assume those are perfectly clean and flat.

The Austrain Audio OC16 (among others) have a HF notch around 7-8k (FR chart here). My understanding is this is to help de-ess. What do you think of putting this in the mic rather than handling it in post? It looks like several of the mics I'm looking at (OC16, AT4033) have a dip like this, while others (e.g. TLM102) do not.

If you have any favorite mics for male vocals, and maybe acoustic guitar, please let me know. I'm looking in the sub-$500 range (e.g. AT4033, OC16, Mk4, maybe a used TLM102). I'm making a list of candidates so I can try them out.

Are you using acoustic guitar, or electric?

If electric, you want to pick up direct, and through the amp. The amp microphone is going to need a -10dB pad and distance.

I would suggest a multi-pattern condenser tube mic for vocals plus a small diaphragm condenser for acoustic guitar. If the budget works, buy 2 pairs. You can do side jobs with mic pairs. Make friends in town to borrow mics.

Rode is an Australian microphone maker with low noise, good quality control, and very good prices. They have variable pattern large diaphragm tube mics.

I'm not up to date on the universe of small diaphragm condensers (SDC). I used to use the AKG C-451 a lot. I'm looking at buying some well respected Line Audio from Sweden CM4's. The step up for SDCs is a steep step, the Schoeps CMC6 plus capsule or several choices in DPA. Earthworks is very respected in SDC. On your SDC you will need to make decisions on the pattern of the capsule. If you want to sing and play at the same time, cardioid and super cardioid. Some SDC have interchangeable capsules on the same preamp body. Most mic makers have high quality - not YouTube quality - downloadable SDC test audio fies on acoustic guitar.

With a LDC and a SDC you can experiment with distance and with 2 pairs stereo. With one of each, you can pan, and send them to echo plugins for stereo.

If you want to experiment with preamps, do that with plugins. Get a clean preamp+ADC, like an RME, Focusrite, Millenia, UA-Apollo, or Burl. Some of the UA come with plugins. You can do a lot with plugins for voice.

To judge what you are doing, you are going to need good monitors in a good room or monitoring headphones. Friends in your town to test mixes on their monitors are a great resource.

 

[Rja4000]

preamps in UFX, for instance, to me were kinda noisy

That seems strange. But I didn't measure those. Just the UCX II's and the 12Mic.
See above.

 

[Rja4000]

The myths in pro audio are plenty and some of them are even more ridicoulos than straight plain audiophoolia.

I completely agree !

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

I completely agree !

What myths are there in pro audio?

 

[Rja4000]

There is a clear difference between audiophiles and professional engineers. I find a lot more "snake oil" in the audiophile world because you're dealing with people who don't have as much of a trained ear. Many of the DAC's measure poorly and people generally like the distortion that is added.

The main difference is that a pro engineer usually doesn't mind admitting the preamp in use is not tranparent and adds some "tune" or distortion.
Because that's anyway part of the creative process.

We're not concerned with how a preamp measures.

Well, the engineers creating those are, probably. Because they are engineers, and engineers like reproducible results through all production batches.

We're concerned with how it sounds to us and how it helps something fit into a mix. We experiment with "in-the-box" DSP plug-ins and compare them to analog processors. Spoiler alert; the analog stuff usually wins although the digital world just keeps getting better.

This is probably a key difference: A pro sound engineer with enough harware at hand will do trials and errors.
But what if those trials and errors could be done in a less destructive way and in post, after sound capture ?

the inconsistencies are the gold.
I have run mixes through Pro Tools in the digital world and compared them to mixes that ran through an analog console. Nothing was changed except it was run through a console to get everything down into 2 channels. The mix in the console is pretty much always better and the difference is staggering. What causes that? The inconsistencies in the console. The capacitors that aren't quite working up to value. The fact that no two transformers are exactly the same. The distortion caused by taper faders. When these devices don't do exactly what they're supposed to, we get great results (sometimes we get bad results if it's too far off). The analog world is inconsistent but beautiful to the ear.

I read the same kind of thing from people in awe in front of analog photography process.
And, still, digital photography is such a HUGE step forward...

First, I really don't think it's about inconsistencies. It's about WANTED distortion and no linearities
That's very different.
Otherwise, 2 Neve 1073 would never sound the same, by a margin (they may not sound EXACTLY the same, but still similar enough to make the brand's "sound signature")
So this is made BY DESIGN non transparent.
This may have been due to the available technology, back in the 50s or 60s, but now it's clearly a design CHOICE.
And it's also a business. Pretty much like we see for HiFi "Audiophile" stuffs.

My beef here is that the audiophile world and the professional engineer world is very different. Audiophiles are easy to fool. Pro Engineers are not. Pro Engineers have been working with phase, DSP, EQ and the like for many years. Pro Engineers don't just listen to music in their house or in their car. Pro Engineers are comparing microphones, preamps and all of the equipment they can get their hands on in many different situations.
It's just a different level of experience.

I don't agree on this. Pro engineers may also be mislead. Of course, the experience matters.
And when it's about a "signature" (that DO actually exist), like when picking the right microphone (nothing is more colored than a microphone !) or its positionning, they just know, by experience, what to get.
But when it's about subtile differences, I'm not sure they are more reliable than an honnest (methodic and and experienced) audiophile.

Anyway, measurements are needed to UNDERSTAND what is at play here. And sort the legends from the real thing.
This is what we speak about here: how can we qualify a product ? Nothing's faster, more reliable and more reproducible than a good set of measurements IF you're looking for transparency.
If you're not, then other tools are needed.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

The main difference is that a pro engineer usually doesn't mind admitting the preamp in use is not tranparent and adds some "tune" or distortion.
Because that's anyway part of the creative process.

Absolutely! Transparency is not the game.

Well, the engineers creating those are, probably. Because they are engineers, and engineers like reproducible results through all production batches.

This is probably a key difference: A pro sound engineer with enough harware at hand will do trials and errors.
But what if those trials and errors could be done in a less destructive way and in post, after sound capture ?

Sure, but that's just a different approach. There's a lot more to it then whether its done in pre or post. You're working with an artist's process so often times you have to adjust the method and use a combination of approaches.

I read the same kind of thing from people in awe in front of analog photography process.
And, still, digital photography is such a HUGE step forward...

In the audio world, it's still hard to beat analog. Digital is close now and is certainly more versatile, but there's something magical about analog.

First, I really don't think it's about inconsistencies. It's about WANTED distortion and no linearities
That's very different.

The inconsistencies are the wanted distortion and non-linearity. There are even plug-ins that try to emulate this. It still doesn't sound the same to most people.

Otherwise, 2 Neve 1073 would never sound the same, by a margin (they may not sound EXACTLY the same, but still similar enough to make the brand's "sound signature")
So this is made BY DESIGN non transparent.

It's generally known that Neve 1073 preamps have a good amount of variation from each other. There are Neve consoles where specific channels are used for kick drums and specific channels are used for guitars because of the sound of those actual preamps differences. Neve 1073 preamps do have a signature but also have differences between each other.

This may have been due to the available technology, back in the 50s or 60s, but now it's clearly a design CHOICE.
And it's also a business. Pretty much like we see for HiFi "Audiophile" stuffs.

Word.

I don't agree on this. Pro engineers may also be mislead. Of course, the experience matters.
And when it's about a "signature" (that DO actually exist), like when picking the right microphone (nothing is more colored than a microphone !) or its positionning, they just know, by experience, what to get.
But when it's about subtile differences, I'm not sure they are more reliable than an honnest (methodic and and experienced) audiophile.

I wasn't speaking of methodic and experienced audiophiles.........if you get me. Of course pro engineers can be mislead. I see it all of the time, but no where near as much as I see in the audiophile community. But that's just my perspective.

Anyway, measurements are needed to UNDERSTAND what is at play here. And sort the legends from the real thing.
This is what we speak about here: how can we qualify a product ? Nothing's faster, more reliable and more reproducible than a good set of measurements IF you're looking for transparency.
If you're not, then other tools are needed.

Measurements are great and needed. But there's no substitute for experience, trained ears and the ability to maximize a process to get good results. There's a reason that some guys are at the top making great records or mixing great live shows.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snip.... That's why I originally asked you if you had ever done an A/B listening test with them just like they did in the article. I have done many. Do you really think professional engineers can't hear the difference?

I'd firstly ask did you hear a difference in the files with that article and how did you rank things prior to knowing which is which.

And yes I think professional engineers are just as biased as regular humans. They do in fact hear things in ways others don't and also fool themselves much the time.

If the Neve has a sound, it isn't high fidelity. If I had a guess it would be the transformers. Seems often when those are in the signal path they give that big sound. Even this isn't well documented other than anecdotally. As Rja 4000 asked, it would be nice to see some thorough measurements. Now the Neve sound is what the rep is built upon and it may well be one that most music benefits from. The building up of harmonics as you mix in more channels all seems to indicate a pervasive coloration. It isn't a superior form of fidelity.

EDIT to add: I see Rja 4000 posted much the same ideas only better stated than I did.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is excellent and it is certainly the debate today that I hear a lot.
There is a clear difference between audiophiles and professional engineers. I find a lot more "snake oil" in the audiophile world because you're dealing with people who don't have as much of a trained ear. Many of the DAC's measure poorly and people generally like the distortion that is added.
But it's different when we're talking about recording equipment and professional engineers who spend a lot of their lives finding what sounds better in what situations. We're not concerned with how a preamp measures. We're concerned with how it sounds to us and how it helps something fit into a mix. We experiment with "in-the-box" DSP plug-ins and compare them to analog processors. Spoiler alert; the analog stuff usually wins although the digital world just keeps getting better.
Your question of "why don't those devices just do what they're supposed to do?" is a great. But what we find is that the inconsistencies are the gold. I have run mixes through Pro Tools in the digital world and compared them to mixes that ran through an analog console. Nothing was changed except it was run through a console to get everything down into 2 channels. The mix in the console is pretty much always better and the difference is staggering. What causes that? The inconsistencies in the console. The capacitors that aren't quite working up to value. The fact that no two transformers are exactly the same. The distortion caused by taper faders. When these devices don't do exactly what they're supposed to, we get great results (sometimes we get bad results if it's too far off). The analog world is inconsistent but beautiful to the ear.
Now, this is the opposite of the hifi world where we are usually striving to recreate the music without coloring it.
My beef here is that the audiophile world and the professional engineer world is very different. Audiophiles are easy to fool. Pro Engineers are not. Pro Engineers have been working with phase, DSP, EQ and the like for many years. Pro Engineers don't just listen to music in their house or in their car. Pro Engineers are comparing microphones, preamps and all of the equipment they can get their hands on in many different situations. It's just a different level of experience.

And yet, exactly like the audiophile, hear and there, and now and again, various blind tests give results that don't support all this confidence Pro Engineers espouse. Not in terms of knowing fidelity or even sound. Not in separating the real from the imagined. They have a unique position in that they create what the rest of us listen to, they have to have confidence in what something does or can sound like to do their job. Most are not looking for transparency, that is not even their job really. Good sounding recordings is their job. Plain transparency is not usually the goal, and often would not give as pleasing a result with the majority of music.

Pro Engineers might be harder to fool than audiophiles, but not that much harder. They have the same issues with bias as all humans.

Saying a pro doesn't care how a preamp measures only how it sounds is an indication of misplaced experience. How a preamp sounds is going to be related to how it measures inherently. One can make the Neve sound for cheap if they have a target of performance to shoot for. If every one sounds different that is just poor unreliable QC. Maybe it works in this context, but it sounds a bit too cute to me.

 

[Rja4000]

Sure, but that's just a different approach. There's a lot more to it then whether its done in pre or post. You're working with an artist's process so often times you have to adjust the method and use a combination of approaches.

True. Human aspect is key in that process. You probably need the sound right from the take, indeed, just to get confidence from the musician / producer.

In the audio world, it's still hard to beat analog. Digital is close now and is certainly more versatile, but there's something magical about analog.

Sorry, I'm an engineer, so not much into "magic" ;-)

Seriously, if I take the example of Digital photography - a topic I know quite in depth - the "analog magic" is just about the random factor that is added to the artistic creation process. Nothing else.
Since several years now, there is nothing left to the Analog photography that the digital photography can't reproduce and do MUCH better, except this random factor.
Which has nothing to do with a technical aspect, and everything with adding some "creative" factor.

Note that, as is the case in most area, this was NOT true at the begining of the digital photography era, when it was just becoming common and widely spread.
At that early stage,the sensors and digital process was still limited and struggling to equal or best the film (well, the best film camera+proces).
But this time is now long gone. At least since 2010-2012 or so.

For pro sound, the early digital mixers were also quite limited and performances were so-so.
(I remember when we were using the Yamaha 02R and the likes)
But nowadays, the power of DSP and internal processing, as well as ADC and DAC components, are way ahead.
As become the performance of software plugins.

What may be lacking is the proper understanding of all those "analog magic" aspects, that could be better emulated.

Measurements are great and needed.
But there's no substitute for experience, trained ears and the ability to maximize a process to get good results.

I see no conflict between those 2 things.

 

[Ifrit]

I see no conflict between those 2 things.

Ditto. You have to be an engineer to use ‘engineering’ part (measurements) of recording process to achieve desirable result in creative process.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

And yet, exactly like the audiophile, hear and there, and now and again, various blind tests give results that don't support all this confidence Pro Engineers espouse. Not in terms of knowing fidelity or even sound. Not in separating the real from the imagined. They have a unique position in that they create what the rest of us listen to, they have to have confidence in what something does or can sound like to do their job. Most are not looking for transparency, that is not even their job really. Good sounding recordings is their job. Plain transparency is not usually the goal, and often would not give as pleasing a result with the majority of music.

Agreed on this. It's not a game of transparency (where I think hifi is). It's a game of translating the artists vision into a media that other people can experience.

Pro Engineers might be harder to fool than audiophiles, but not that much harder. They have the same issues with bias as all humans.

Depends on the details, but I can see how this could be the case. It also depends on who the "pro" is. I realize that I keep using that term but I know some professional engineers that I don't consider to be very good.....

Saying a pro doesn't care how a preamp measures only how it sounds is an indication of misplaced experience. How a preamp sounds is going to be related to how it measures inherently. One can make the Neve sound for cheap if they have a target of performance to shoot for. If every one sounds different that is just poor unreliable QC. Maybe it works in this context, but it sounds a bit too cute to me.

Sure, the sound is certainly compared to how it measures. But if you measure a Neve 1073, it's obviously going to add a bunch of distortion and if you measure several, they will vary widely. Newer products might have a lower noise floor and flatter measurements but the results that we can get with a Neve are hard to beat. That's what I mean about "not caring about the measurements". Maybe I could be more accurate to say that we like the coloration. Of course the measurements could show it.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

True. Human aspect is key in that process. You probably need the sound right from the take, indeed, just to get confidence from the musician / producer.

Sorry, I'm an engineer, so not much into "magic" ;-)

After I wrote the word "magic" I thought it might elicit that kind of response, and rightfully so.

Seriously, if I take the example of Digital photography - a topic I know quite in depth - the "analog magic" is just about the random factor that is added to the artistic creation process. Nothing else.
Since several years now, there is nothing left to the Analog photography that the digital photography can't reproduce and do MUCH better, except this random factor.
Which has nothing to do with a technical aspect, and everything with adding some "creative" factor.

Note that, as is the case in most area, this was NOT true at the begining of the digital photography era, when it was just becoming common and widely spread.
At that early stage,the sensors and digital process was still limited and struggling to equal or best the film (well, the best film camera+proces).
But this time is now long gone. At least since 2010-2012 or so.

For pro sound, the early digital mixers were also quite limited and performances were so-so.
(I remember when we were using the Yamaha 02R and the likes)
But nowadays, the power of DSP and internal processing, as well as ADC and DAC components, are way ahead.
As become the performance of software plugins.

I work exclusively on an Avid Digital Console. The Converters and preamps are far better than the previous generation. But the few times I get my hands on a fully analog console and there is no digital process in line, it still sounds more natural to me. That's definitely a consensus among engineers, but we can do a whole lot more with a digital console than we can with an analog. The measurements could easily show this since the DAC and ADC conversions do in fact change the waveform. The digital consoles are also far more consistent from channel to channel. But again, that inconsistency can often lead to a great summation of channels that is more pleasing to the ear. Subjective? Yes, of course. Is it likely from some sort of distortion? Yes, of course.

What may be lacking is the proper understanding of all those "analog magic" aspects, that could be better emulated.

While plug-ins have come a long way and so has DSP, I still find the analog gear to do it better most of the time. Is that likely due to measurable harmonic distortion? Sure. Could I tell a difference in a blind hearing shootout? It would be fun to try. I've recently changed my mind in regards to digital guitar sounds. I think they are finally as good as a real amplifier and I don't think I could tell a difference in a shootout. Of course, they are emulations of real amplifiers in a studio done by one of the best studio engineers on the planet. But the technology is there. I think digital consoles are close.

I see no conflict between those 2 things.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

I'd firstly ask did you hear a difference in the files with that article and how did you rank things prior to knowing which is which.

And yes I think professional engineers are just as biased as regular humans. They do in fact hear things in ways others don't and also fool themselves much the time.

If the Neve has a sound, it isn't high fidelity. If I had a guess it would be the transformers. Seems often when those are in the signal path they give that big sound. Even this isn't well documented other than anecdotally. As Rja 4000 asked, it would be nice to see some thorough measurements. Now the Neve sound is what the rep is built upon and it may well be one that most music benefits from. The building up of harmonics as you mix in more channels all seems to indicate a pervasive coloration. It isn't a superior form of fidelity.

This is a complex thing. It's actually the nature of the harmonics that helps many different sources fit into a mix better. It's often the harmonics that give loudness cues and spatial cues. So if Hi fidelity is a distortion free and accurate thing, you're correct that the Neve is not that. But if we only want that then our recordings will be sterile and boring. The human brain (I think for most people) really respond to harmonics, distortion and spatial cues that might not be natural. So the "pervasive coloration" is generally something that people like. We like distorted guitars. We love the sound of a tube mic on vocals.

EDIT to add: I see Rja 4000 posted much the same ideas only better stated than I did.

 

[Bergante]

Metric Halo make excellent audio interfaces. And they have an interesting feature to counteract the accusation of being "sterile" because they try to make them as accurate as an instrumentation preamp.

You can configure a "personality" for the audio input, which just digitally tweaks frequency response and can add some distortion.

The "personality" is based on their +DSP engine and it offers several non linear building blocks with names such as "Hard Clip", "Soft Clip 1, 2, 3", etc. Combining them they offer "personalities". You can try them and definitely there is a difference.

I don´t have a THD meter but I imagine it wouldn´t be hard to add different kinds of distortion so that the THD measurement is the same while sound is different. I think I can try in the digital domain using SpectraFOO, their measurement software. I will have a look.

• None: No modeling is applied.
• Transformer: Applies the harmonic distortion signature of a transformer-coupled input.
• Valve: A tube-based EQ input stage.
• FET: Model of a solid state (FET transistor) front end.
• SoftSat:Tube-basedEQwithsaturation.Thisisthe‘SoftSat’fromtheMHProductionBundle Character plug-in.
• SoftSat Gain: Tube-based EQ with saturation, gain adjusted so the saturation point lines up with 0dB (e.g. the signal will get louder). This ‘SoftSat’ is specific to the 3d DSP.
• Boutique Tube: Hand-made tube mic pre.
• American Transformer 1: A variation of the “Transformer” model.
• American Transformer 2: Second variation of the “Transformer” model.
• California Tube Mic: American designed tube mic pre.
• California Tube Line: American designed tube line input.
• Modern Tube DI: Mastering quality tube DI.
• Modern Tube EQ: Mastering quality EQ.
• Modern Tube Soft Sat: Mastering quality EQ with saturation.
• Modern Tube LG: A tube mic pre with a low gain setting.
• Modern Tube MG: A tube mic pre with a medium gain setting.
• Modern Tube HG: A tube mic pre with a high gain setting.
• Modern Tube Sym: Mastering quality EQ
• Modern Tube Soft Sat: Mastering quality tube mic pre with saturation.
• Classic British Mic Pre: A favorite large console mic pre.
• American Solid State: FET mastering EQ.
• California Vocal Box: Transformer coupled tube vocal processor.
• California Vocal Box Drive: Transformer coupled tube vocal processor with increased gain.
• British Mic Pre Clone: A popular clone of a favorite British mic pre.

The funny thing is, you can experiment drawing a free form graph with elements such as these:

 

[Rja4000]

Metric Halo make excellent audio interfaces. And they have an interesting feature to counteract the accusation of being "sterile" because they try to make them as accurate as an instrumentation preamp.

You can configure a "personality" for the audio input, which just digitally tweaks frequency response and can add some distortion.

The "personality" is based on their +DSP engine and it offers several non linear building blocks with names such as "Hard Clip", "Soft Clip 1, 2, 3", etc. Combining them they offer "personalities". You can try them and definitely there is a difference.

I don´t have a THD meter but I imagine it wouldn´t be hard to add different kinds of distortion so that the THD measurement is the same while sound is different. I think I can try in the digital domain using SpectraFOO, their measurement software. I will have a look.

• None: No modeling is applied.
• Transformer: Applies the harmonic distortion signature of a transformer-coupled input.
• Valve: A tube-based EQ input stage.
• FET: Model of a solid state (FET transistor) front end.
• SoftSat:Tube-basedEQwithsaturation.Thisisthe‘SoftSat’fromtheMHProductionBundle Character plug-in.
• SoftSat Gain: Tube-based EQ with saturation, gain adjusted so the saturation point lines up with 0dB (e.g. the signal will get louder). This ‘SoftSat’ is specific to the 3d DSP.
• Boutique Tube: Hand-made tube mic pre.
• American Transformer 1: A variation of the “Transformer” model.
• American Transformer 2: Second variation of the “Transformer” model.
• California Tube Mic: American designed tube mic pre.
• California Tube Line: American designed tube line input.
• Modern Tube DI: Mastering quality tube DI.
• Modern Tube EQ: Mastering quality EQ.
• Modern Tube Soft Sat: Mastering quality EQ with saturation.
• Modern Tube LG: A tube mic pre with a low gain setting.
• Modern Tube MG: A tube mic pre with a medium gain setting.
• Modern Tube HG: A tube mic pre with a high gain setting.
• Modern Tube Sym: Mastering quality EQ
• Modern Tube Soft Sat: Mastering quality tube mic pre with saturation.
• Classic British Mic Pre: A favorite large console mic pre.
• American Solid State: FET mastering EQ.
• California Vocal Box: Transformer coupled tube vocal processor.
• California Vocal Box Drive: Transformer coupled tube vocal processor with increased gain.
• British Mic Pre Clone: A popular clone of a favorite British mic pre.

The funny thing is, you can experiment drawing a free form graph with elements such as these:

View attachment 288115

My Focusrite Liquid 4 Pre is doing something similar (although probably less elaborate. But it adds some hardware adaptation as well).

That was (almost) exactly my point.
I still think this effect shouldn't captured but added at playback, though.

 

[Rja4000]

But the few times I get my hands on a fully analog console and there is no digital process in line, it still sounds more natural to me. That's definitely a consensus among engineers

Well, the analog console probably adds a little more noise, some saturation effect when pushed hard (distortion and, possibly, compression), variable with frequency and level (transformers),...
You may like it, especially if you're used to it.
It's still what I categorize as "effect", though.

This is probably perfectly measurable (and, therefore, reproducible).

 

[Bergante]

My Focusrite Liquid 4 Pre is doing something similar (although probably less elaborate. But it adds some hardware adaptation as well).

That was (almost) exactly my point.
I still think this effect shouldn't captured but added at playback, though.

I don´t have the audio interface here but if I am not wrong it doesn´t force you to add it to an actual analog input. You can do it after the fact for a previously recorded signal, just as an additional efect in post production.

It is just digital modeling, done with the +DSP subsystem. They don´t publish the actual graphs as far as I know, but you can experiment yourself.

I found rough measurements of some of the personalities

2D Character Guesses? – Metric Halo +DSP MIO Tips, Tricks, and Tweaks

and some other +DSP examples here:

+DSP – Metric Halo +DSP MIO Tips, Tricks, and Tweaks

 

[Ricardus]

There is only one microphone to consider if you're looking for an entry level price point and want maximum quality. Get the Shure SM27 LDC. I bought two 18 years ago or so when they were called the KSM27, and I would put them up against almost anything.

A far as preamps, just pick one.