Post by: wwittman on February 05, 2005, 07:28:15 PM
What a sign of the TODAY'S times that the first question wasn't what console, or tape machine... but "what mic pres" as though one MUST be using an assortment.
This multiple mic preamp trend is the Atkins Diet of audio.
Doesn't work over time and may be bad for you. <g>
Terry, those SpectraSonics desks had terrific mic pres... although I was never a huge fan of the EQ (which always seemed a bit too subtle for me).
I remember on the desk in Record Plant Studio A in NYC, that you could almost switch the EQ in and out and not be SURE it was on!
cheers,
ww
Post by: Lee Flier on February 06, 2005, 11:17:48 AM
| wwittman wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 19:28 |
I know it's self-serving, but I just HAVE to point out that, like just about all great recordings, it was done on the CONSOLE with the CONSOLE PRES. What a sign of the TODAY'S times that the first question wasn't what console, or tape machine... but "what mic pres" as though one MUST be using an assortment. This multiple mic preamp trend is the Atkins Diet of audio. Doesn't work over time and may be bad for you. <g> |
LOL... yeah I was glad to see Terry mention that also! I rarely remember ever using an outboard mic pre or anyone even really discussing them until the digital/in the box era began. Everybody used the console pres. And of course a lot of console pres sounded really great. 'Course nowadays I say that and people look at me like I'm nuts, and even a lot of older guys say "Oh, we've always used outboard pres." Like nobody wants to admit it or something.
Killer Zep stories Terry!
Post by: wwittman on February 06, 2005, 11:38:18 AM
Engineers, especially the LA guys, started to carry mic pres to avoid using the desk's.
Post by: Fletcher on February 06, 2005, 11:49:13 AM
Funny... before the 600 came around it seemed that console manufacturers thought that the pre-amp was an important part of a desks design... I think it should also be mentioned that the 600 was designed by Harrison who's pre's were some of the most vile pieces of shit I have ever encountered.
My current career choice has made Harrison a God to me... but as an engineer I really wish he had gone into another line of work.
Post by: wwittman on February 07, 2005, 02:52:03 PM
The 600 was the turning point in many ways (from which we have yet to recover <g>) but I have to disagree that the 500's were any good either.
I was the Chief Engineer at a studio with a bunch of 500's for a few years and when I went back a few years later and listened to all the things I had done there, comapred to records I had made on much better desks before and after, there was a real archeological type line in the soil strata...
you could so clearly hear the bad desk years.
Anyway, this IS the genesis of the outboard mic pre phenom... it never began with one pre being "better" for a particular purpose.
Everytime I see someone ask something like "what mic pre should I use with a 421 on an electric guitar amp IF the guitar player has a 1972 SG Standard and the band i am recording does Serbo-Croation whaling songs?" I cringe.
ps when people speak of valuing "vintage" 500's it's as oxymoronic as 'vintage' DX-7's.
The sooner they are sunk as artificial reefs the better.
Post by: punkest on February 07, 2005, 07:13:24 PM
| wwittman wrote on Mon, 07 February 2005 19:52 |
Everytime I see someone ask something like "what mic pre should I use with a 421 on an electric guitar amp IF the guitar player has a 1972 SG Standard and the band i am recording does Serbo-Croation whaling songs?" I cringe. |
Ok, I get your point, but, if you don't have a good console at hand, AND you have a lot of good OB pre's AND you find that one of them indeed works better to get a particular sound you are searching for -WHICH BTW THEY DO- SOUND DIFFERENT, THAT IS, AND INTERACT DIFFERENTLY WITH DIFFERENT MICS- Then I don't see why not to use it instead of others. ALSO I don't see the problem of using different colors in the same album, just as you use different mics, and different instruments, and different players, and sometimes different rooms. Anyway, this topic has been covered to death in other threads, so I rest my case here.
Terry, thanks for the great stories...
Hans Mues
Post by: wwittman on February 07, 2005, 11:39:46 PM
Post by: Lee Flier on February 08, 2005, 03:28:35 PM
I've got nothing against outboard pres. Although I don't obsess over them too much - give me a couple of really good transparent ones and I'm happy, so long as I've got good mics. I just thought it was curious when the transition happened... that is, when suddenly more and more people started using outboard pres when it used to be that almost nobody did.
And yes, I hadn't thought about it but "a certain console" probably WAS to blame for the rise of outboard pres. I just never really worked anywhere that had those consoles, fortunately. One of the first studios I worked at had an incredible little API desk. If I had that desk today I wouldn't dream of using any other pres, and neither would anybody, I'll bet!
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 08, 2005, 05:05:01 PM
Post by: punkest on February 08, 2005, 06:31:41 PM
| wwittman wrote on Tue, 08 February 2005 04:39 |
If we stop discussing things that have been "discussed to death" then there will be approximately 5 posts a day in the entire site. <g> |
You're probably right! we need to keep old topics alive with new discussions, but I KNOW I have a point here, so refute if you may. Cheers
Hans Mues
Post by: gtoledo3 on February 09, 2005, 12:08:27 AM
Some records done on the MCI-
Margaritaville-Buffet
Celebration- Kool and the Gang
Derek and the Dominoes
Talking Heads-Speaking in Tongues, 1983
Van Morrison- throughout the 70's and 80's
Spirit- 12 Dreams
A list of people that have recorded on the 416 when it was at FAME in Muscle Shoals....
Aretha Franklin -- Liza Minnelli
Wayne Newton -- Wilson Pickett
Tom Jones -- Otis Redding
Jerry Lee Lewis -- Percy Sledge
Little Richard -- George Jones
The Osmonds -- Donny Osmond
Marie Osmond -- Paul Anka
Andy Williams -- Charlie Daniels
Lynyrd Skynyrd -- Mac Davis
Lou Rawls -- Ray Stevens
Jerry Reed -- Travis Wammack
Marty Stuart -- Dobie Gray
Bill Medley -- Solomon Burke
The Drifters -- Bobbie Gentry
Duane Allman -- Joe Tex
Billy Joe Royal -- Eddie Hinton
Etta James -- Tommy Roe
Bill Haley's Comets -- Clyde McPhatter
Clarence Carter -- Arthur Conley
Johnny Jenkins -- King Curtis
Joe Simon -- Wet Willie
Paul Hornsby -- Otis Rush
Boz Skaggs -- Johnny Sandlin
Wild Cherry Lobo -- Johnny Wyker
Arthur Alexander -- Don Covay
Ronnie Hammond-- Berry Oakley
The Tams -- The Soul Survivors
Vern Gosdin -- Hourglass
John Hammond
The Sweet Inspirations
To paraphrase, I don't think too many people have listened to those projects and thought "only if we didn't have to use that MCI 500 preamp on guitar!".
However, I am not one to take any validity away from someone's experience. It is all about what works for you, and makes your life easier.Wwitman, don't you think that the advent of outboard pre use had a little more to do with the rise of "Sounds So Little"?
Post by: hargerst on February 09, 2005, 09:49:50 AM
Post by: wwittman on February 09, 2005, 02:00:08 PM
and I made records, as i said, on the 500's as well... it's only when i went back and compared that I really saw how lousy they sounded.
Sorry.
they do.
and the tape machines as well.
And your little dog, too.
hit records can be made on anything... the question is only if they would sound better IF...
Post by: Samc on February 09, 2005, 02:27:20 PM
Post by: Former Oceanway drone on February 09, 2005, 07:17:25 PM
Cheers,
Alan Tomlinson
Post by: compasspnt on February 09, 2005, 07:46:30 PM
Post by: compasspnt on February 10, 2005, 09:00:33 AM
| gtoledo3 wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 00:08 |
...I don't think too many people have listened to those projects and thought "only if we didn't have to use that MCI 500 preamp on guitar!". However, I am not one to take any validity away from someone's experience. It is all about what works for you, and makes your life easier. Wwitman, don't you think that the advent of outboard pre use had a little more to do with the rise of "Sounds So Little"? |
OK, so what clever names did everyone come up with for MCI, or, for that matter, for any other brands of gear?
For example, I always heard:
Much Crap Inside, and
M--C--I------K--E--Y---....
Post by: Ozzy on February 10, 2005, 01:46:57 PM
Post by: dcollins on February 11, 2005, 02:23:21 AM
| Austin Ince wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 10:46 |
Munchy, Crunchy and Intermittent, was how we used to referred to our MCI 24track recorder. |
"Many Channels Intermittent"
"May Cause Insanity"
DC
Post by: Ryan A. Mills on February 11, 2005, 10:57:41 AM
Post by: compasspnt on February 11, 2005, 11:16:01 AM
| Ryan A. Mills wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 10:57 |
I was having this discussion with my partner last night when we were discussing the direction of the studio we manage. I really like this pre that we have here and I suggested that we buy a whole lot more channels of this particular brand of preamp and he looked at me like I was nuts. He's very much in favour of having many different "colours" on a recording. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. I guess it's nice to be able to create an assortment of different sounds, but is it "better" than using many of the same preamps? |
Good question. Of course, prior to the modern outboard mic pre era, almost all albums were done using the exact same mic pre on every instrument, every vocal, every thing. There were certainly some excellent recordings made that way. No one ever thought it needed to be different, and there were some great audio minds and ears working.
Today, it is common practice to use outboard pre's of much variation, almost exclusively. Sometimes now, if I plug a mic into one of my consoles, rather than an outboard, the artist, or someone associated with the session will ask why I am doing that, implying that I don't care about the particular sound in question. That's come a long way from a few years ago!
I think it's great to be able to choose an API for drums, a 1073 for guitar, a DWFearn for bass, or whatever. But is it really better? I don't know...
I suspect it all really comes down to the song, the performance of the musicians/singers, the balancing ability of the engineer, and the vision of the producer, rather than the colour of the mic pre.
Terry
Post by: maxdimario on February 11, 2005, 02:09:35 PM
It makes for a more realistic sound space, and forces you to alter the sounds at the physical level, which is more interesting.
of course a mic pre with too much of a sound will make the whole recording sound limited.
if you like colored preamps ( fuzzy, un-maintained, cheap) then you absolutely have to have more than one to compensate for the shortcomings.
one for bass sounds, one for midrange lead sounds, one for smooth high freq. etc..
I think recording music can get over-complicated and over-rated sometimes.
It should be about capturing a great performance, possibly with the whole group playing, at first.
My favourite records were made in a relatively short time with not too much equipment.
maybe different preamps are better used for sweetening and overdubbing, once you already have a structure to work into, as you may have trouble finding space for additional instruments once the foundation is there.
Post by: wwittman on February 11, 2005, 06:35:31 PM
I've said many times, I not only think it's not "better".
I think it's actually worse.
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 11, 2005, 06:44:50 PM
Maxdimario - why not go one better and have 1 mic for all sources? That gives even more realistic sound space by the same logic. Very effective, but not many engineers are open-minded enough to try it (even considering logically that 1 mic works great for a whole orchestra).
I like to use the same ears for hearing everything (non-linear, limited bandwidth, easily saturated parabolic transducers though they are - and they're even less robust than a ribbon mic
).Andy
Post by: compasspnt on February 11, 2005, 08:37:44 PM
| andy_simpson wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 18:44 |
Also worth bearing in mind that a lot of great old recordings were made with no Q/sweep EQ (not required to fix all the problems of using multiple different pre's)....just hi and low shelf.....why not go one better and have 1 mic for all sources? That gives even more realistic sound space by the same logic... |
Good points Andy!
The EQ thing is very true. I have 2 channels of EMI mic pre/EQ/comp from the board in Abbey Road 2 on which The B's recorded many of their songs. All of the EQ there is simple shelving, without very many frequency selections. Humans seem to always do everything to death until they reach a point of absurdity, losing sight of the simple goals of quality (the Audio Peter Principle?)
As for the one mic situation, I often come close to that. I don't think I've ever used JUST one mic for a complete song recording (especially since when tracking more than one is usually required) but after tracking, I very often just keep moving around the one 47, or whatever, to almost every instrument. Same mic pre, equaliser, compressor (if any). It does give a consistency of quality which I like.
In a similar vein, on the ZZ Top Eliminator album we almost used only one guitar (there were two of the same brand, same pickup) and did use only one amp, one mic, for ALL guitars on the entire album. The differences were made at the source by the player.
Post by: Lee Flier on February 11, 2005, 08:50:29 PM
Post by: i dig music on February 11, 2005, 11:07:10 PM
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/1435/0/0/7 26/?SQ=89d22ef50a3741aa67499af57201164f
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 12, 2005, 02:33:04 PM
I'm thinking that the B's would've used a 47 for the drum overhead if they weren't so concerned about SPL regulations.....
Btw, Terry, what kind of EMI channel strips, and how much use do they get - how would you describe the sound?
Andy
47 into 1176 - doesn't work on what?
Post by: wwittman on February 12, 2005, 03:27:13 PM
I often do exactly that same thing... after the basic tracks are done, just move the one mic around.. same pre, same compressor, just adjust and go.
More and more for me, it's a Gefell.
Post by: Arf! Mastering on February 12, 2005, 04:06:20 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 20:27 |
More and more for me, it's a Gefell. |
Care to say which Gefell?
Post by: compasspnt on February 12, 2005, 04:35:23 PM
| andy_simpson wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 14:33 |
47 on everything.....but of course! I'm thinking that the B's would've used a 47 for the drum overhead if they weren't so concerned about SPL regulations..... Btw, Terry, what kind of EMI channel strips, and how much use do they get - how would you describe the sound? Andy 47 into 1176 - doesn't work on what? |
Hi Andy,
By the way, what was the mic that one sees hanging over Ringo's kit in the photographs?
My EMI channel strip is a two channel "Mic Cassette Mk III," model number "TG 12345/622A, EMI Ltd., England." The features are:
Bass EQ (no freq specified, non changeable) +/- 10 in 2 dB steps
Presence EQ @ .5, .8, 1.2, 1.8, 2.8, 4.2, 6.5, or 10k, +/- 10 in 2 dB steps
Pan (stepped)
Echo send
2 Cue sends
Comp OR Lim on each, w/settable "Hold" and "Recovery."
The faders are what I call the "Over the hill to grandmother's house we go" ones you see in the photos.
Once when I had it open, I found a hair inside the fader box. Of course, it was obvious to me that this was John Lennon's hair, which had fallen into the faders as he listened to a playback of the vocal overdub of "Strawberry Fields." So I put the hair into an envelope, and have it somewhere.
The sound of these to me is somewhat reminiscent of a Neve 1081...not really warm, but very strong and a little "grainy." I really do love the sound of this box, and have used it a lot as mic pre's, and even line-in on the stereo mix buss at times. There is an undefinable apparent loudness/presence boost when things go through it...or at least I imagine there is!
47 into an 1176 not working on what? Sorry I don't quite understand. I may have said that the acoustic guitar sound in question is available from 176, but not from 1176...?
Thanks,
Terry
Post by: wwittman on February 12, 2005, 11:16:16 PM
I've recently made two records, one moving a Gefell UM70 around for almost everything, and another using a UM900 (which is an incredible mic.. but pricier)
Post by: compasspnt on February 12, 2005, 11:44:47 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 23:16 |
I think the mic you're talking about over RIngo is an STC 4038, innit? |
Yes, the 4038 is in some pix, but I was referring to one I don't recognise seen in some of the Lewisohn book photos, hanging pretty high over the snare. Looks somewhat like an EV, but I'll bet it's not, with pencil body going to a larger head, pointing downward.
Post by: Michael Greene on February 13, 2005, 02:27:29 AM
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 13, 2005, 07:53:32 AM
Re. the EMI channel strips, are they the solidstate strips used on the later recordings or the old tube ones?
Also, do you pay much attention to transformers and impedance in your signal path? Ie. do you consider pre-amp input impedance relationships with transformer coupled mics?
Andy
Btw, the "47 into 1176, doesn't work on what?" in my sig, was a bit of rhetoric....I meant to suggest that you could not beat a 47 limited by an 1176 on any source - which seems to be bourne out by beatle records
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 13, 2005, 02:34:42 PM
| Michael Greene wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 01:27 |
It sounds like your talking about the AKG D-19. A talk back mic that G.E. started using on the drums. |
The D-19s weren't simply talk back mikes! They played the same role that 57s did in the United States. I bought one out of curiosity but found that anything it would do, an EV RE-15 would do better. The thing to understand is that RE-15s cost as much as U-67s did during the mid '60s in England.
Post by: wwittman on February 13, 2005, 05:05:10 PM
It was one of those 'everywhere' dynamics for a while.. like 421's.
It's more of a tom mic, or close drum pick-up than a true 'overhead' in thsoe pictures whcih is why I was confused.
I think Geoff for a while had one like that and another coming round the floor tom side, plus a KM-54 on the snare.
Post by: compasspnt on February 13, 2005, 05:23:32 PM
"On the kick drum we use a [Neumann] FET U47 through a Universal Audio 610 mic pre into a Lang PEQ2 EQ," Baseford explains. "We also had a Sennheiser 421 on the kick going to a 610 mic pre into a Mercury EQP and then to our secret box, which will remain nameless. We also used a Shure 520 ('The Green Bullet') into an old Ampex 350, which is what we reach for when we're going for something trashy. The kick drumhead we used was Ambassador coated. We left the front with no holes, just a regular head.
"On the toms we used an Audio-Technica AE3000 going into a 610. A few inches back we had an Audio-Technica AT4047 and that was going into a Neve 1073. We put a Pultec EQP1 or 1A3 across the tom as well. We were using the AE3000 to trigger the AT4047 through a Drawmer gate - the AT4047 is gated.
"For the snare we used the Audio-Technica AE5100 and that was going through a Neve 1081 and into an 1176 and also a Pultec MEQ5. We had an AKG D19 going into a 1081 and a Shure SM57 on the bottom snare. We also had a 57 that fed an Ampex 350 . . . the 57 was gated and EQ'd through a Focusrite ISA430 before it hit the 350. That was just to get some 'gank' on the snare. The hi-hat was a [AKG] 451 into a 610.
"About four inches above Tommy's head we had a Coles 4038 feeding an Ampex 351 going to an 1176. Right next to that there's a RFT bottle mic; the one with interchangeable capsules. It has an M7 capsule on it. The RFT was going into a Manley Vox Box.
"Our room mics were two RFT's going through 610s as well. They were spread really wide, almost at the side of the kit. The cymbals were B&K 4011s going through the dbx 786."
There; now you know. (Ww, especially take note and learn!)
Post by: wwittman on February 13, 2005, 11:00:57 PM
Thanks, Terry....
and I'm sure it blows Abbey Road away.
after all that, when exactly did they run the Beat Detective? <g>
Post by: dylancw on February 14, 2005, 08:46:01 AM
From my personal (limited) experience...
A friend of mine (who is a great engineer) had a system using outboard pre's (API, Neve, UA, GML, Millenia, Pultec) and Pro Tools HD3. (He also had a nicely rebuilt MCI 24 track.) Monitoring was through a simple line mixer... It was perhaps a near ultimate realization of the 'right pre for the job, everything outboard' mentality, Lynn Fuston's mic pre shootout notwhithstanding.
He recently purchased a Neve 8068. WOWOW it sounds great. Clean, open sound, yet cohesive. Easy to make something sound great, (if it's great), easy to hear problems with the mix, harder to make glaring errors. And far fewer patches to outboard gear. (Just sending auxes to the plate, or a 224xl...) It was much more work to get something sounding great with the direct to protools setup.
It seems like no contest to me...
Post by: wwittman on February 14, 2005, 02:28:31 PM
as far as "fixing up" an MCI... did he have it bolted to the anchor line?
<g>
Post by: rphilbeck on February 20, 2005, 10:25:10 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 17:23 |
Just in case any of you have wondered about the value of using totally different mic pre's, instead of a console based one, here is a quotation from the Internet about how Tommy Lee's drums were recently recorded. PLEASE BEAR IN MIND that this is someone else, NOT ME doing this: "On the kick drum we use a [Neumann] FET U47 through a Universal Audio 610 mic pre into a Lang PEQ2 EQ," Baseford explains. "We also had a Sennheiser 421 on the kick going to a 610 mic pre into a Mercury EQP and then to our secret box, which will remain nameless. We also used a Shure 520 ('The Green Bullet') into an old Ampex 350, which is what we reach for when we're going for something trashy. The kick drumhead we used was Ambassador coated. We left the front with no holes, just a regular head. "On the toms we used an Audio-Technica AE3000 going into a 610. A few inches back we had an Audio-Technica AT4047 and that was going into a Neve 1073. We put a Pultec EQP1 or 1A3 across the tom as well. We were using the AE3000 to trigger the AT4047 through a Drawmer gate - the AT4047 is gated. "For the snare we used the Audio-Technica AE5100 and that was going through a Neve 1081 and into an 1176 and also a Pultec MEQ5. We had an AKG D19 going into a 1081 and a Shure SM57 on the bottom snare. We also had a 57 that fed an Ampex 350 . . . the 57 was gated and EQ'd through a Focusrite ISA430 before it hit the 350. That was just to get some 'gank' on the snare. The hi-hat was a [AKG] 451 into a 610. "About four inches above Tommy's head we had a Coles 4038 feeding an Ampex 351 going to an 1176. Right next to that there's a RFT bottle mic; the one with interchangeable capsules. It has an M7 capsule on it. The RFT was going into a Manley Vox Box. "Our room mics were two RFT's going through 610s as well. They were spread really wide, almost at the side of the kit. The cymbals were B&K 4011s going through the dbx 786." There; now you know. (Ww, especially take note and learn!) |
That's sad. Just sad. Who the hell is minding the store?
Post by: Lee Flier on February 20, 2005, 10:40:20 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 23:00 |
(laughing) after all that, when exactly did they run the Beat Detective? <g> |
More importantly, how many of those drum hits ended up being replaced with samples?
Post by: maxim on February 21, 2005, 10:44:05 AM
william,
what do you think is the process for degradation of sound from multiple preamps?
does it make it sound too heterogenous?
if that's the case, is that just something to be aware of, and work with, rather than avoid?
i would think, choice is always better than not (albeit more dangerous in the wrong hands)
i mean who cares what tommy's drums sound like (if they remain unheard, like the lonely tree in the forest)?
cheers
max
paris, france
Post by: Ross Hogarth on February 21, 2005, 11:10:52 AM
| Lee Flier wrote on Sun, 20 February 2005 19:40 | ||
More importantly, how many of those drum hits ended up being replaced with samples? |
yeh man, first i eq it, then i compress it, then i flange it, then i doblee it, then i dbx it, and THEN I MUTE IT ....
Post by: Radd 47 on February 22, 2005, 07:50:40 PM
Post by: wireline on March 04, 2005, 07:29:15 AM
OK...I'm finally starting to get it...the consensus here is one type of preamp (regardless of how many of that one type) seems to be a preferred method to achieving a...memorable...sound.
And, these preamp choice (regardless of which one) can offset shortcomings in a board's internal pre circuits....
And, that a good (great) pre can be used for anything from strings to screaming guitars to vocals to drums...when used in conjunction with the right placement, right mic choice, right musicians, etc...
So, why all the arguments, fist fights, shootings, mother stabbings, and flamefests when it comes down to 'which pre for which application?" Isn't there enough historical precendence for the one pre application to put this matter to rest? Perhaps the arguments didn't arise until the medium to which they were outputted to changed.
In the end, it appears there are a few external units (API, Neve, to name a few) that will wound good on anything...and that for the most part, the lion's share of pres can be usable if the engineer knows what to do with it and understands the system's limitations?
If I'm wrong, please let me know...I've been behind the board for a while now and still get headaches over all this confusion.
Post by: Kris on March 04, 2005, 08:20:56 AM
Next I'm recording a full band with an API board. There is an acoustic guitar part... the same player and guitar (and mic) as the previous example.
You are saying it will sound better as a whole to use the API pre on the acoustic, even though my ear tells me that it sounds better (soloed) using the MP-4?
Maybe you're saying as a whole (using great pres) it doesn't matter... but for the life of me I'm not understanding how this can make the recording worse???
Just trying to get this straight.
Post by: Lee Flier on March 04, 2005, 09:12:56 AM
But I digress, sort of. I don't think I necessarily agree with William that using multiple pres actually makes a recording worse, although there are scenarios I can envision where it would (and I would love to hear William's ideas behind why he thinks so). And most of us have probably worked on Frankenconsoles where there are a few channels from other types of desks.
I don't think I'd use more than two different pre's on a record though, three at the very most. If they are great pres, I can't imagine feeling I neded it, and at that point it becomes just another opportunity for "option paralysis"... there are endless permutations of mic/pre combinations and it's probably better to just pick a great pre or two (preferably one that you're familiar with on different mics) and remove that from the equation.
Also worth noting is that there are only a handful of pres that really do sound great on anything. The rest seem to only sound good for certain things, thus creating a "need" to use multiple pres if we don't have/can't afford a rackful of premium channels.
Post by: Lee Flier on March 04, 2005, 09:26:12 AM
| wireline wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 07:29 |
So, why all the arguments, fist fights, shootings, mother stabbings, and flamefests when it comes down to 'which pre for which application?" Isn't there enough historical precendence for the one pre application to put this matter to rest? |
You would think, but... see my last post.
| Quote: |
Perhaps the arguments didn't arise until the medium to which they were outputted to changed. |
Yeah, I don't ever remember hearing one argument of that nature until a few years ago. The market has become flooded with outboard pres of varying quality now within a very short time, so arguments and confusion are inevitable.
| Quote: |
In the end, it appears there are a few external units (API, Neve, to name a few) that will wound good on anything...and that for the most part, the lion's share of pres can be usable if the engineer knows what to do with it and understands the system's limitations? |
That's somewhat true once you get above a certain level, spec-wise. A pre that doesn't have enough headroom will sound crappy on very loud or transient sources like drums, although it might be perfectly fine for quieter stuff. A pre that is noisy and/or doesn't have a lot of gain will sound like doo-doo on quiet sources (especially with a ribbon mic!
) but might be fine on an electric guitar cab... etc.But if you can afford a rackfull of high quality pres you might as well pick one (and maybe 1-2 channels of a different one) that has great specs all around and can handle anything, and leave it at that. With the cheaper stuff, you need options because they had to cut corners somewhere.
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 04, 2005, 12:49:35 PM
BTW, I have a friend who made a record with a certain very famous engineer that still sports a mullet (his name rhymes with 'pweeg'). Anyway, my friend says that this engineer spent over an hour trying different mic pres for the tambourine track. Usually there is is crystal meth present for this type of behavior, but apparently there wasn't any in this case. But if you look at this guy's room full of all that fucking gear, I have to say I don't think his mixes are that great, at least not better than mixes that come from a good engineer using a fraction of that gear. But that's a rant for another topic named "Why do they keep giving work to the Emperor's new clothes?"
Post by: compasspnt on March 04, 2005, 01:33:26 PM
| J.J. wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 12:49 |
BTW, I have a friend who made a record with a certain very famous engineer that still sports a mullet (his name rhymes with 'pweeg'). Anyway, my friend says that this engineer spent over an hour trying different mic pres for the tambourine track. Usually there is is crystal meth present for this type of behavior, but apparently there wasn't any in this case. But if you look at this guy's room full of all that fucking gear, I have to say I don't think his mixes are that great, at least not better than mixes that come from a good engineer using a fraction of that gear. But that's a rant for another topic named "Why do they keep giving work to the Emperor's new clothes?" |
Hummmmmm.......
JJ, I could write the mother of all stories for this forum about a certain individual (including scanned evidence which would blow everyone away), but I just can't do it (at least in writing), however deserved it may be. Professional ethics just (barely) take precedence....
Post by: wwittman on March 05, 2005, 02:13:49 PM
Does the tambourine end up sounding incredible? Or is it just part of the mystique he's selling?
And at home will YOUR tambourine really be improved if you drop another 1500 on the preamp that you read on the net you NEED to have to go with the mic you NEED to have for a tambourine on your specific genre of music...
it gets ridiculous.
FAST.
If my favourite records of all time, the recordings I thought were still superior to anything else.. the ones that everyone tries to emulate... if they were made on one desk and probably mixed on it as well!, then why on earth do I NEED more choices??
As to why it's 'bad' to have the choices?
Well, again, first it's bad because if you spend even a minute deciding how to record the tambourine instead of just doing it, you're wasting time and probably stopping someone's creative flow (if you don't HAVE any creative flow then tambourine isn't going to help... even marraccas can't save you there <g>)
and second, especially in the hands of the less experienced, I still believe it's just one more chance to make sounds that don't work well together.
If you have, for example, API pres and you make the entire record through them, in no way will your record be 'improved' by a 1073 on some things.
Only changed.
It may not ruin your work.
It just won't make a better record, and it may make a somewhat worse one.
Post by: maxdimario on March 05, 2005, 09:25:07 PM
The pre should reproduce the music in a natural and powerful way.
Music should be hypnotic, and the pre should be able to capture that by being fast and natural enough to transmit the immediacy of the performance.
The big problem of course is that most preamps should be called budget preamps because they come from consoles with a large amount of channels in a small chassis.
large component count makes for high cost, so restrictions of quality are applied to balance cost and sales.
Post by: McAllister on March 07, 2005, 12:34:15 PM
c'mon. . .
M
Post by: compasspnt on March 07, 2005, 02:00:07 PM
| McAllister wrote on Mon, 07 March 2005 12:34 |
Terry - With all due respect, please don't taunt us like that. It's unnerving. Can't you change the names? Refraing from displaying scans? Change a couple of smallish facts around so that no-one knows who you're talking about? c'mon. . . M |
| Quote: |
J.J. wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 12:49 BTW, I have a friend who made a record with a certain very famous engineer that still sports a mullet (his name rhymes with 'pweeg'). Anyway, my friend says that this engineer spent over an hour trying different mic pres for the tambourine track. Usually there is is crystal meth present for this type of behavior, but apparently there wasn't any in this case. But if you look at this guy's room full of all that fucking gear, I have to say I don't think his mixes are that great, at least not better than mixes that come from a good engineer using a fraction of that gear. But that's a rant for another topic named "Why do they keep giving work to the Emperor's new clothes?" Hummmmmm....... JJ, I could write the mother of all stories for this forum about a certain individual (including scanned evidence which would blow everyone away), but I just can't do it (at least in writing), however deserved it may be. Professional ethics just (barely) take precedence... |
Sorry! I don't mean it to be a tease...read JJ's post carefully and draw your own conclusions...those who have encountered this un-named individual will know whereof I speak...But I can't in good conscience actually say bad things in print about a (...ugh!,..leaves a bad taste...) fellow music person (....uggghhh, a very bad taste, to even say it...). I will think through my options here.
Post by: RMoore on March 07, 2005, 02:06:00 PM
I heard it was the sound that really made the tune a hit!
Post by: compasspnt on March 17, 2005, 01:17:51 PM
| J.J. wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 12:49 |
"Why do they keep giving work to the Emperor's new clothes?" |
I keep a sign on my console which reads
"WWJJD"
I will not explain further.
Post by: ajcamlet on March 18, 2005, 09:40:38 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 13:33 | ||
Hummmmmm....... JJ, I could write the mother of all stories for this forum about a certain individual (including scanned evidence which would blow everyone away), but I just can't do it (at least in writing), however deserved it may be. Professional ethics just (barely) take precedence.... |
Terry:
how about just changing the names & places to protect the guilty?
ajc
Post by: ajcamlet on March 18, 2005, 09:44:40 AM
Post by: Andy Simpson on March 18, 2005, 05:51:37 PM
Since I have been doing entire projects with sm57s and same pre, I've never had so many comments about 'vibe'.
(Most recently, I did drums, bass, guitars, vocals, keys, alto & tenor sax, trumpet, percussion....).
Without exception, at least one person in each band/group/ensemble has said 'great vibe!' as their first impression of the mix (even during tracking).
Not 'that sounds cool' or 'I love that kick-drum' but the word 'vibe'.
This is not coincidence as far as I'm concerned.
I really think that this same-pre thing extends much further into the realms of microphones.....
Andy
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 18, 2005, 08:29:02 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 17 March 2005 10:17 |
I keep a sign on my console which reads "WWJJD" I will not explain further. |
Terry, that is hysterical. I actually use that saying with my favorite session bass player, but in our case it's "What would James Jamerson do?"
Post by: compasspnt on March 18, 2005, 10:50:55 PM
| J.J. wrote on Fri, 18 March 2005 20:29 | ||
Terry, that is hysterical. I actually use that saying with my favorite session bass player, but in our case it's "What would James Jamerson do?" |
Excellent, JJ...but in my case, I intentionally do the opposite!
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 18, 2005, 11:44:44 PM
Post by: punkest on March 19, 2005, 11:21:48 AM
| Kris wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 13:20 |
Say I'm recording an acoustic guitar and vocal. I've got a Great River MP-4 and an API 312... using the same mic, the MP-4 , sounds better than the API 312 on the acoustic guitar. Next I'm recording a full band with an API board. There is an acoustic guitar part... the same player and guitar (and mic) as the previous example. You are saying it will sound better as a whole to use the API pre on the acoustic, even though my ear tells me that it sounds better (soloed) using the MP-4? Maybe you're saying as a whole (using great pres) it doesn't matter... but for the life of me I'm not understanding how this can make the recording worse??? Just trying to get this straight. |
Exactly!
Just as it is insane to check pres for tambourine for an hour (starting from the fact that you supposedly know your gear and should know from experience what will work for the sound you are trying to get, thus avoiding the poor percusionist a lot of muscular fatigue and pain) it is equally insane to think that you will ruin your recordings for using different preamps. As long as you know how they sound and interact with your mics, and you know what you are after they are as any tool as other, it can help you or not depending on the way you use them.
Post by: wwittman on March 19, 2005, 04:50:48 PM
But it may not be as consistent as using the desk.
I've just seen too many recordings where you go to mix it and every sound is fine on its own, but there's NO sense of it all hanging together.
I've said before, I'm sure that Terry could make a record with 100 different mic pres and have it end up sounding like good recording... his experience tells him how to put it together and he knows, instinctively by now, when something just isn't sitting in the mix and he makes the correction without thinking much about it.
He's listening to it like a RECORD all the time already.
But he's not someone who's just learning.
He's not someone who has to come on the internets (thanks GW) and ask people what preamp "goes with" this mic or that.
I'm not so black and white that I've ever said no one should ever use a scattering of preamps.. I've had to do it sometimes by circumstances...
What I have said and do say is that it doesn't serve most poeple well to THINK that way.
If I gave you a roomful of nothing but an API desk and 30 U-87's and you cannot make a REALLY good sounding record, then you need to learn, a LOT.
And it has nothing to do with equipment.
Post by: jwhynot on March 19, 2005, 04:58:55 PM
Post by: jwhynot on March 19, 2005, 05:00:31 PM
Isn't it like accountants debating paper and pencils?
JW
Post by: Lee Flier on March 19, 2005, 05:01:34 PM
Will you PLEASE give me an API desk and 30 U87's? I PROMISE I'll make some really good sounding records!
Post by: thedoc on March 19, 2005, 05:57:39 PM
Post by: compasspnt on March 19, 2005, 06:37:49 PM
| thedoc wrote on Sat, 19 March 2005 17:57 |
Drool dudes...! |
VERY cool!
Got the pre's, but in lunchboxes. Got both 'verbs, but got no Pandora. Got the tape machine, but it's only got 16 tracks...think I should upgrade to 24?
Post by: jwhynot on March 19, 2005, 06:45:32 PM
JW
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 20, 2005, 12:40:22 AM
| compasspnt wrote on Sun, 20 March 2005 10:37 |
Got the tape machine, but it's only got 16 tracks... |
What would you do with those extra 12 tracks?
Post by: wwittman on March 20, 2005, 11:26:11 AM
When 16 tracks came along, we were all still recording like we did on 8 track.
So in the beginning we still put the drums on perhaps 2 tracks and all the guitars on 1 and all of the keys on 1 s on. The extra tracks just meant more overdubbing was possible without bouncing.
Over time, we started to spread things out a bit more, so perhaps the drums were on 3 tracks and each guitar got its own track...
But it wasn't really until 24 that the idea of spreading a drum kit out onto 6 or 8 or 10 tracks started.. and pretty soon peple were looking for ways to lock multiple machines together and the era of Jim Steinman 72 tracks sessions was born.
(although remember Bat Out Of Hell was a 16 track, I did some little work on it)
So it depends... if you reduce things to a few tracks then 16 can be fine.
But if you record in the STYLE that spreads things out, then 24 is barely enough .
Actually I more often than not found 24 to be a magical number.
It was usually 23, once automation came around becasue one track went for SMPTE...
but those 23 were usually JUST enough.
Although on occasion I admit we had to make slave reels to do lots of backing vocals or something and then I'd always TRY at least to bounce them back into the master.
I never personally felt 16 track sounded that mjuch better than24 and I still don't.
A LITTLE better? maybe.
But not enough to justify the inconvenience once we all got used to recording with lots of tracks.
Post by: compasspnt on March 20, 2005, 01:10:17 PM
WWell stated (as usual) synopsis of the change from 8 to 16, then the "spreading out" onto 24 tracks. Indeed, at first, 16 really meant there wwere 8 new tracks available for anything else, as the rhythm tracks stayed bussed together as they had been.
Howwever I will slightly disagree on one point. I wwill never forget the day our first 24 track machine arrived. I wwas very excited about the extra tracks becoming available, of course. But I distinctly remember my disappointment at the difference in sound betwween the twwo. I immediately thought that this 24 sound wwas unacceptable, especially in the powwer of the bass and bass drum. Of course, I soon got over it, and 24 became the norm. And I do think 24 sound improved wwith higher level, lowwer noise tape becoming available.
Post by: Lee Flier on March 20, 2005, 02:10:49 PM
I did and do perceive quite a difference with 24, a smaller and less powerful sound stage. I would rather sync up a couple of 16 track decks if more than 16 tracks are needed, than use a 2" 24 track... although I almost never need more than 24 tracks for anything I do, and often 16 is enough.
Post by: wwittman on March 20, 2005, 02:41:17 PM
were they LIKE machines?
I mean I remember some places that had fairly good 16 Tracks and then in came an MCI 24 next to it.. so no shock the 24 sounded crappy.
But a 16 track headstock on an A800 sounds only a tiny bit better to me than 24 on the same GOOD machine.
Also, did you ever hear Roy Thomas Baker's Stephens 40 track?
Sounded as good as many 24 tracks.
And better than any MCI.
There's a lot more to a good sounding machine than the sheer number of tracks.
Post by: compasspnt on March 20, 2005, 02:46:32 PM
I agree the difference in 16 and 24 heads on the same Studer machine is less.
By the way, [he said on the outboard mic pre thread] can anyone comment on the JRF 8 track 2" (with one timecode track) format? Sure looks good to me. Available for Studer or Otari.
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 21, 2005, 03:04:55 AM
Post by: wwittman on March 21, 2005, 09:01:39 AM
I'd bet that comparing the 3M to the MCI even if both were 16 track, would give you the same loss of bass drum punch.
I played around a tiny bit with the 2" 8 track thing.
It wsounds pretty good, naturally, but not night and day and the inconvenience factour is rather large.
For me, it fits into the WWJJD category of looking REALY cool to the client/artiste but for not much gain in quality.
I seem to remember that Michael Beinhorn was also using it at 7.5 ips because he thought the EQ curve sounded better.
I care about good audio as much as almost anyone.
But, at a certain point I start thinking about the song and the performances and other things that I tend to believe, or would like to believe, matter... instead of tweaking every last little drop of audio esoterica.
Post by: Lee Flier on March 21, 2005, 09:09:30 AM
Post by: wwittman on March 21, 2005, 02:19:37 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 21, 2005, 05:13:59 PM
I just can't understand why a "producer/engineer" would spend that much time in the mirror to make sure he gives that same 'Zoolander' pose for every picture I ever see of him. I have a saying that might go back on my signature now: "Friends don't let friends act like rockstars."
Post by: Otitis Media on March 22, 2005, 07:10:20 AM
Post by: punkest on March 22, 2005, 07:38:40 AM
| wwittman wrote on Sat, 19 March 2005 21:50 |
Ruin? maybe not. But it may not be as consistent as using the desk. I've just seen too many recordings where you go to mix it and every sound is fine on its own, but there's NO sense of it all hanging together. I'm not so black and white that I've ever said no one should ever use a scattering of preamps.. I've had to do it sometimes by circumstances... What I have said and do say is that it doesn't serve most poeple well to THINK that way. If I gave you a roomful of nothing but an API desk and 30 U-87's and you cannot make a REALLY good sounding record, then you need to learn, a LOT. And it has nothing to do with equipment. |
I agree it has not much to do with equipment, adding that I prefer a bad recording of good music that an excellent recording of soulless or bad music, BUT good sound is indeed part of our duty, we all know that, and IT CAN BE DONE on different preamps as you already admitted, it relies on HOW YOU DO IT, even though I understand and agree with your point that it doesn't serve most people well to THINK that way.
AND
Please give me an API desk and 30 U87?s!!! I promise it'll come out sounding very good!!!