acupunk wrote on Thu, 10 June 2004 17:47 |
I just purchased the 3d audio mic pre CD. there are several mic pre's to listen to. High end. They all sound very similar, however the GML 8302 stood out. Just beautiful. Does it really that much what pre you have if it is clean? or are the mics are more important? |
Daniel_Dettwiler wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 03:29 |
the longer I record the more I start to think that all those pres are not at all that important. Much more I like to spend time to check mics out. I think that the right mic on the perfect position is far more important that the pre. |
Quote: |
I think the performer in front of the mic is what it is all about malice |
malice wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 05:50 | ||
I think the performer in front of the mic is what it is all about malice |
gtoledo3 wrote on Fri, 11 June 2004 12:53 | ||||
That is a fact, proven time and time again... The main problem with the "preamp/mic/whatever cd's"- besides all of the other problems that have been listed- is that you are listening to solo-ed tracks. A pre will truly show it's sonic signature when you start stacking tracks up. |
Lynn Fuston wrote on Sat, 12 June 2004 19:44 |
To answer your question, mic preamps make a very pronounced difference. Mics make an even more substantial difference. We auditioned between 3 and 6 mics for each source we recorded. |
Lynn Fuston wrote on Sat, 12 June 2004 13:44 |
And here's a picture of Paul Leim, drummer, with me in front of the preamps we heard. He picked a clear favorite and first runner up among the ones we heard. He was truly shocked at how much difference there was between the preamps with everything else staying the same. |
Lynn Fuston wrote on Sat, 12 June 2004 13:44 |
I did a "shoot out" on drums this morning... One preamp in particular is quite obviously different on snare, but beyond that I would say it's shades. And, the pres I tested today were a quite different set of topologies: Solid State Clean, Tube, 1073-like. What am I missing? |
Mark LaCoste wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 16:36 |
Ted, interesting insight, the "console sound" idea. Just last night I tried using two different preamps to capture myself singing and playing guitar. Maybe the Ted Nightshade method would have worked better. |
Quote: |
Sometimes I hear stuff on the radio where it's obvious that different parts of the drum kit were done with different pres, and then other instruments were done with yet other ones |
ted nightshade wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 13:46 |
Myself, I'm a fan of a "console sound", not really with a console, but where all the pres are the same, and all the tracks have that much in common. One way to have everything work nicely together as a whole, with pres that work that way. Sometimes I hear stuff on the radio where it's obvious that different parts of the drum kit were done with different pres, and then other instruments were done with yet other ones, and they really didn't go together too well- this was jazz, maybe that's why it sounded so weird to me. {snipped} Or maybe that's all just a rationale for not having one of everything! =) |
stickman wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 22:35 | ||
Ted, if you are serious about this, im seriously giving this whole audio shit away! i can't even hear (strictly sonically speaking) when someone tells me, "this song sounds digital" on the radio. all i can ever think of is, "this song sounds good/shit". to me, it's always seemed like far, far, far too many factors come into play before the final product (radio or even CD) to define such idiosyncrasies... now im not denying that what you hear isnt true, im still a young (and poor) buck who hasn't had their hands on the cream of the crop gear, so on the contrary im saying thats amazing! its just that im gradually perceiving this devolopment of dogmatic views in audio production. |