Neve 1073 or 1084 with Neumann TLM-103?

[apaclin]

Hi, I own Neumann TLM-103, which is a very bright mic (and maybe even harsh) and I'm choosing a preamp for it. I already tested UAD Neve-1073 (also with the mix) and it sounded just amazing, but then I found out that there's also 1084 that is more flexible with EQ. On the other hand 1084 sounds brighter (even with the same settings) and with TLM-103 a little too harsh.

So is UAD Neve-1073 better in this case? Let me know.

P.S.
For some reason output with this plugin is reeeally low, I have to crank it up a lot. Why so?

[apaclin]

And I sing in it by the way.

[Humble Bee]

I would look into getting a different mic (before any preamp or eq) that delivers something closer to the sound you are after.

[twotoedsloth]

You might consider the TLM 193, it is a much more forgiving mic, and I think the price is comparable. I have pairs of both.

Just this man's opinion, I could be mistaken.

[Wonks]

The UAD 1073 plug in only provides a low output if you've got a low level input signal going into it. I've used it and it's fine. Haven't used the UAD 1084 but it should be exactly the same.

Are you thinking of getting a 1073 or 1083 hardware pre-amp, or just purchasing the UAD plug-in of it?

Any pre-amp should really be as neutral sounding as possible until you start driving it hard, and only at that point should it really start to impose its own character on the sound.

There are so many software EQs available that unless you want to do old-style 'British' recording and 'print' all EQ and effects to the track, rather than record and then EQ and add effects afterwards. it does seem rather limiting to just use one variety of EQ if you buy it in hardware form.

[apaclin]

The UAD 1073 plug in only provides a low output if you've got a low level input signal going into it. I've used it and it's fine. Haven't used the UAD 1084 but it should be exactly the same.

Are you thinking of getting a 1073 or 1083 hardware pre-amp, or just purchasing the UAD plug-in of it?

Any pre-amp should really be as neutral sounding as possible until you start driving it hard, and only at that point should it really start to impose its own character on the sound.

There are so many software EQs available that unless you want to do old-style 'British' recording and 'print' all EQ and effects to the track, rather than record and then EQ and add effects afterwards. it does seem rather limiting to just use one variety of EQ if you buy it in hardware form.

UAD plugin.

[The Red Bladder]

Nothing wrong with the 103. I have four of these and they are excellent for vocals and other duties such as brightening up otherwise dull or dark sounding instruments.

I run them through an Amek desk and the sound is spot-on. Try an Amek 9098 pre with EQ. Very clean and with one of the best EQs you'll find anywhere.

[CS70]

If you have UAD, you should have the 610 emulation on the Unison preamps. Might be worth a try, the 610 (real or virtual) does good things to the top end.

But I agree with Red, it's very likely the 103 is simply picking up your room very well...

[apaclin]

Thanks for the response, but I'm not looking for a real preamp. UAD has a sale right now and I'm figuring out if should I grab a new UAD preamp (and which one) or keep using the UAD 610 that's already with the interface.

If you are interested you can check out the comparison I made. I recorded in treated space (with a little of room leaking in). Red waveform is UAD 610-B (gain is set to -5) and white is UAD Neve-1073, eq is default.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xdpfiu7yl5kas ... B.mp3?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ib0x7rvt6sbx0 ... 3.mp3?dl=0

Neve has slightly warmer sound, more low end and more peaks at highs. So I'll just have to figure out if it's worth spending additional $140 or I will work with 610-B and rely on mixing

Nothing wrong with the 103. I have four of these and they are excellent for vocals and other duties such as brightening up otherwise dull or dark sounding instruments.

I run them through an Amek desk and the sound is spot-on. Try an Amek 9098 pre with EQ. Very clean and with one of the best EQs you'll find anywhere.

[Wonks]

For an easier frequency comparison, you could send the same pink noise signal (about 30 seconds worth allows the randomness to average out) through both plugins and record the output and compare using a frequency analyser with an averaging function. The near-instantaneous FFT displays on EQs can mislead at the low end.

I normally send the results of two hard panned mono tracks to a stereo track with the analyser on as an easy way to get both graphs up at the same time.

[CS70]

Well, if you have to figure it out, the answer is no..

I mean now people go spectrum analysis and all, but the trick is simple: the best preamp is either the one you have available or, if you have more than one available, the one that you like best.

If you have to think about it, if it doesn't grab you by your lower parts and you don't suddenly shout "I need to use this!"... there's no difference enough.

Which is, frankly, usually the case.

It's almost always a waste of time to get hung on the preamp.

That stuff that matters is much, much different.