mic and mic preamp question

[Ifrit]

Well, you cannot go wrong with U87 and 1073... juuust kidding.

In terms of ribbon mics I like Samar AL95 a lot, or Beyerdynamic M160, latter is almost twice the price of the former. And they need a lot of gain.
Condensers that are cheap I like Line Audio CM4, for example. Don't care for RØDE stuff at all. I like Austrian Audio OC818 a lot, much more than it's 'predecessor', AKG C414, although don't mind using it as well. I would assume OC16 is at least similar quality, so should be good.

Preamps... so many of them. The 'air' button on SSL interfaces are nothing more than added distortion, as well as on other interfaces, too. I do not like it, just as I don't like the preamps on their modern consoles. Most of modern interfaces will have clean enough preamps for home recording for sure. I wouldn't go for the ones with 'special qualities'.

 

[thecheapseats]

<snip> ...I'd likely try something like an ART tube preamp on a normal mic first, to try out a warmer sound... <snip>

since you mentioned an 'art' tube pre - I had to respond... pardon the misc ramblings of an old man...do keep in mind that art tube pre is a device with a distinct palette with narrow applications - but if you have a real reason to use one, it simply works... recommended and they're not nutty money...

on a whim a few years ago I picked up one of those surprisingly well reviewed (and cheap for what it does) Pro MPA-II ART tube pres... not a normal go-to pre for me at all and I've never used it with condensers, only ribbons...

I was attempting to sorta' turn back the hands of time with some 2nd and 3rd harmonic tube-o-rama vibes while dual miking a well know from long ago recording-grade spinning cabinet with some old school dx77 ribbons I'd owned for years... one on the top - one on the botton - and into that pre...

during the demise of several world class studios in L.A. twenty-plus years ago I picked up a pair of dx77 mics that hadn't been abused and had Wes Dooley painstakingly restore them... sonically, the concept actually worked - I was quite surprised - and that art tube-pre served a real purpose as it has tons of gain, impedance adjust, a plate voltage selection and mid/side (if you need it)...

a real throwback to when 'grid-bias' ruled the world...

 

[radix]

I had not looked at ribbon mics. Yeah, a whole new area to obsess about

I'll likely start out with one or two Wave SSL plugins rather than buy a boutique preamp.

 

[Ifrit]

Ribbons can be a viable solution.
Waves SSL plugins have absolutely nothing in common with run of the mill SSL interfaces and/or preamps.

Be aware that most cheapo “tube“ preamps mostly have tubes as air heaters and are not in the audio passing curcuit. Some of them even have LED underneath to imitate tube operation, but no voltage on heater.

 

[thecheapseats]

ribbon mics - I love them and own several - as well, the newest production designs are quite amazing (AEA, Royer, Coles - many others)... however, don't loan them to your friends who may unknowingly abuse or trash them...

 

[dasdoing]

So we start down the rabbit hole of more myths in pro audio.

distorsion caracteristics is the main thing audio engeniers are looking at with hardware. I do think that this is not really rational nowadays, since you can create all kind of distorsion digitally. But on the other hand there does exist a "mainstream sound" embedded into comon hardware that is hard to copy digitally. over time this sound should fade into new sound (I hope)

 

[JayGilb]

One of my favorite male vocal mics is a Heil PR 40. It has a strong proximity effect and looks like a condenser, but is a dynamic mic.
Very popular among podcasters, it's also a great studio and live mic.

 

[radix]

I got the CAD M179 today. The top end is a bit nicer for my voice than the Sennheiser ME64 I've been using. I've only had time for a few quick tests using headphones. I'll need to listen on the KH80s later.

As I'm still treating the room and have a noisy NAS in there, the hypercardiod M179 pattern is a big help, though even still it definitely picks up more noise than the ME64. Hopefully in a week or two I should have all the noisy stuff moved out of the room and a better mic enclosure setup.

 

[thecheapseats]

I got the CAD M179 today. The top end is a bit nicer for my voice than the Sennheiser ME64 I've been using. I've only had time for a few quick tests using headphones. I'll need to listen on the KH80s later.

As I'm still treating the room and have a noisy NAS in there, the hypercardiod M179 pattern is a big help, though even still it definitely picks up more noise than the ME64. Hopefully in a week or two I should have all the noisy stuff moved out of the room and a better mic enclosure setup.

if the mic compliments your voice and is under budget - you win !!... best of luck with your recording project...

 

[Rja4000]

Well...
First all microphones are different.

They, of course, have different FR, but not only.
They also have different max SPL, noise, directivity, sensitivity to handling noise, robustness and resistance to shock and moisture, to feedback,...

Looking for a good male voice mic... for what use?
Studio only ? Stage only ? A mix ?
While walking ? Or static ? Or very static ?
Handheld or on tripod only ?
While playing an instrument ? Which instrument ?
Inside only or also outside ?
In a quiet or noisy environment ?
...

A few of my favorite voice microphones:
Audix OM7, Neumann KMS105, DPA 4066, DPA 4088,...
Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

For accoustic guitar, I like the DPA 4099 and Neumann KM184 (or KM84, but they get expensive).
Well, it's just what I have and use.
And I mostly use them live.

BTW: I also happen to have a TLM 103.
If you go that way (large membrane condenser), make sure to get yourself the corresponding shockmount.

About the preamp:
There are measurable differences between mic preamps.
That doesn't mean that they lead to audible differences in practice, if you're carefull and know what you're doing setting them up, since, most often, the limiting factors, by far, are the mics and the environment.
But they do exist.

View attachment 272811
NB: In above plot, the Millennia measurement is not limited by an AD stage, so the comparison isn't really valid. And the ADI-2 Pro isn't a mic preamp, of course. I just added it to give a point of comparison.

Small update:
Added 2 new ones.

 

[Rja4000]

More fun:

Added animation for different ADC ranges for the Millennia HV-3C

Looks like RME 12MIc is very close to Millennia if ADC range is +18dBu
and UCX II is very close to +13dBu range...

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

Mic preamps, even in inexpensive audio interfaces are basically a solved problem like DACs. There is a little more variability in performance than DACs, but not a huge amount. A few usually expensive preamps color a bit, but lots of that is just hype and talk.


Sound on Sound a decade a go did a blind online comparison of a bunch of preamps. This article is about the results.

Preamp Post-mortem

When we compared eight mic preamps with very different designs and price tags, we found it hard to tell them apart. Could SOS readers do better?

www.soundonsound.com

If you want to hear them yourself the files are here. You can listen and see for yourself prior to reading the above article with the results revealed.

Pick A Preamp | Media

Audio examples to accompany the article.

www.soundonsound.com

There is an ongoing thread at Gearspace titled "Saving the music industry one magic pixie dust microphone preamp at a time."

Your preamps are fine.

I would add I'm not a fan of the AT4033. They are rather bright, and have a bit more distortion than others at levels above 90 db SPL. I had three of them at one time.

This is quite interesting but I wonder if you've ever compared a Neve 1073 to a Mackie preamp? It's a striking difference on any source with any microphone. I've experienced this difference many times. It's pretty easy to hear it. And the harmonic differences add up when you're using several channels at a time. The Preamp Post Mortem is an interesting exercise but it would not hold up in a room full of professional engineers. They would hear the difference between a Mackie and Neve Preamp. I will say, however, that there are many modern preamp designers and builders that charge a lot more than the preamp might be worth. So, there is certainly some level of snake oil out there and it's important to find some competent engineers to discuss their experiences and understand which gear has shown better effectiveness. I did like the part where they said that microphone choice and positioning can be a bigger difference than the preamp, but this is just engineering 101. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the big kick drum sound or in-your-face vocal sound on your favorite record is a Mackie preamp. It's not.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

The Shure SM7 is a great studio vocal mic. It's a dynamic but presents more like a condenser in the mix. Great mic for a budget.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is quite interesting but I wonder if you've ever compared a Neve 1073 to a Mackie preamp? It's a striking difference on any source with any microphone. I've experienced this difference many times. It's pretty easy to hear it. And the harmonic differences add up when you're using several channels at a time. The Preamp Post Mortem is an interesting exercise but it would not hold up in a room full of professional engineers. They would hear the difference between a Mackie and Neve Preamp. I will say, however, that there are many modern preamp designers and builders that charge a lot more than the preamp might be worth. So, there is certainly some level of snake oil out there and it's important to find some competent engineers to discuss their experiences and understand which gear has shown better effectiveness. I did like the part where they said that microphone choice and positioning can be a bigger difference than the preamp, but this is just engineering 101. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the big kick drum sound or in-your-face vocal sound on your favorite record is a Mackie preamp. It's not.

I'd like more than "hey, have you listened, I have............". This is the pro side of subjectivist audio on the playback end.

Your assumption a room full of pro engineers would have produced different results is a conjecture. As a straight thru preamp where is the difference coming from if the Neve sounds different? Now once you start to contour the sound sure it could work differently/better. Even situations at extremes of gain it might be better or different. Unless it colors the sound how would a Neve sound different than other preamps that function very well in all the parameters related to what a mic pre's job is?

 

[radix]

A Neve 1073 is gain, 3-band EQ, and phase, yes? So from a modern mic preamp (e.g. a motu or rme) with only gain, is that different than the neve gain? I'd assume the magic is in the EQ and phase. I've never used one.

 

[Ifrit]

1073 has transformers on input and output, both introducing harmonics, so, lots of ‘warming‘ distortion plus limited (and possibly curvy) bandwidth. Any generic preamp built around THAT1510/1512 or similar chips (read RME/MOTU/ other interface manufacturer) will be much cleaner than Neve.
Just used BAE version of 1073 yesterday.

 

[Rja4000]

Just used BAE version of 1073 yesterday.

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

I'm pretty sure we'll see an interesting distortion profile. If they have a "sound", like everyone says, that should be pretty brutal.

And, well, I don't see myself spending 2k€ to make sure ;-)

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

I'd like more than "hey, have you listened, I have............". This is the pro side of subjectivist audio on the playback end.

Your assumption a room full of pro engineers would have produced different results is a conjecture. As a straight thru preamp where is the difference coming from if the Neve sounds different? Now once you start to contour the sound sure it could work differently/better. Even situations at extremes of gain it might be better or different. Unless it colors the sound how would a Neve sound different than other preamps that function very well in all the parameters related to what a mic pre's job is?

The Neve 1073 is certainly a colored sound. But the color is what we like. I'm not going to argue the science of it since I haven't measured the differences on preamps. But the difference in sound is clear long before EQ or anything else is applied. Different preamps sound very different and there are clearly some preamps that sound much better than others. Even the article that you originally cited talks about the differences in their sound. Sure, it's coming from "color" which is likely some kind of distortion, but that is how they are used. The point in recording and mixing music isn't the same as a hifi system. We are not going for the cleanest and lowest distortion sound. We generally prefer a larger sound or a preamp with more low end extension. Some preamps sound better in the low mid range. Some preamps have a faster transient attack and work better on drums. I think my "conjecture" about professional engineers hearing the difference in preamps is a fair assumption. I spend a lot of time with them doing just that. I once recorded an album with original Neve 1073 preamps on a Cello with a pickup. I had to re-record a part when the musician changed it and we only had an ART tube preamp. The difference was staggering. With the Neve, it sounded massively big. With the ART it sounded smaller, grainy, more distant. It's just common sense in the pro engineering world that some preamps sound better than others. I'm not sure if I understand the rebellion against this. 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?

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

A Neve 1073 is gain, 3-band EQ, and phase, yes? So from a modern mic preamp (e.g. a motu or rme) with only gain, is that different than the neve gain? I'd assume the magic is in the EQ and phase. I've never used one.

The magic is in the transformers. It's just one of those things that just works. You record through a Neve 1073 (the originals are the best) and then you go to mix the source material and it just sounds amazing. You end up using less EQ and less compression than you would with other preamps. When you combine the many tracks together in a mix, everything just fits better and takes less work to do so. The low end extension is incredible. I've never actually used the EQ on a Neve channel. It's all about the preamp.

 

[Rja4000]

The Neve 1073 is certainly a colored sound. But the color is what we like. I'm not going to argue the science of it since I haven't measured the differences on preamps. But the difference in sound is clear long before EQ or anything else is applied. Different preamps sound very different and there are clearly some preamps that sound much better than others. Even the article that you originally cited talks about the differences in their sound. Sure, it's coming from "color" which is likely some kind of distortion, but that is how they are used. The point in recording and mixing music isn't the same as a hifi system. We are not going for the cleanest and lowest distortion sound. We generally prefer a larger sound or a preamp with more low end extension. Some preamps sound better in the low mid range. Some preamps have a faster transient attack and work better on drums. I think my "conjecture" about professional engineers hearing the difference in preamps is a fair assumption. I spend a lot of time with them doing just that. I once recorded an album with original Neve 1073 preamps on a Cello with a pickup. I had to re-record a part when the musician changed it and we only had an ART tube preamp. The difference was staggering. With the Neve, it sounded massively big. With the ART it sounded smaller, grainy, more distant. It's just common sense in the pro engineering world that some preamps sound better than others. I'm not sure if I understand the rebellion against this. 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 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, for 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 or compressed).

I can also measure RME interfaces, like 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.
(Anybody volonteering to send one for measurement ?)

The only think I have is a Focusrite Liquid 4Pre, which 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 "special 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,... as perfectly as possible, transparently...
And recreate this "sound" much more easily with some VST or other software plugin in the DAW or in the streaming software.
In a computer.
At will.

This is the very idea of the Kemper guitar head: everything, including the amp and speaker is flat and, as far as possible, distortion free, and the effect -and that can be pretty complex- is recreated in the box, in software, with a proper convolution engine.

(Or, if you prefer, just like those "vintage film" effects you may add to your photos in post prod.)

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