Priority: mics or preamps?

[jasdrums]

Hey all,

I’m setting up my drum studio with recording gear and currently have 1x Stager SR2N and 1x AKG D12VR and a Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 (3rd gen).

I’m questioning whether my next purchase should be:

a) upgrading my SR2N to a matched pair, and putting everything through the Focusrite, or…

b) getting a really nice preamp + EQ module (looking at the Heritage Audio HA81 Elite) to get a killer mono OH vibe from the Stager, and putting everything else through the Focusrite, for now.

I do have plans in the long run to add more mics to my setup (hence the 18i20), but am looking to get the best quality sound as soon as I can.

So what do you reckon, matched pair of SR2N’s through the Focusrite, or just one of em through the HA81 (or similar).

I’m pretty much new to all this recording stuff, so am absorbing as much as I can as quickly as poss….would love to know your thoughts.

Cheers!

[Hugh Robjohns]

Unless you're deeply into mono, I'd go for another mic first. The Focusrite preamps are pretty good and far from the weakest link in a typical recording setup.

[RichardT]

I can see the attraction of a physical EQ but today’s software EQs can be superbly clean and flexible and some can model a number physical EQs too. I would personally stick with the Focusrite, add the new mic, record flat and later invest in a high quality EQ plugin if your DAW’s stock plugins aren’t up to the job.

Even if you were to record with EQ there’s a good chance when you (or someone else) came to mixing that further EQ adjustments would be required.

[sonics]

Forget the preamps. Your money should be spent where it really matters, on mics and room treatment. The Focusrite preamps are professional quality and sound great. If you want "vibe" use plugins.

[lowlines]

In my experience better mics make a big difference, pre-amps not really.

[tea for two]

Analogy I have for myself
If I put a brilliant lens on a £200 mirrorless camera the photographs will look brilliant provided I'm a half decent photographer.
If I put a crappy lens on a £4k mirrorless camera the photographs will look crappy in comparison no matter how decent a photographer I am.

Audio interfaces even £100ish nowadays such as Focusrite Scarlet 3rd gen 2i2 have decent enough mic pres such that they can take advantage of a brilliant mic to make real nice recordings.
As long as we know what we are doing and or are following well regarded recording guide books articles as published by SoS such as https://www.soundonsound.com/news/recor ... ok-updated

[jasdrums]

Brilliant - seems to be a clean sweep for the additional mic, thanks very much guys for the replies!

Yes, from what I’ve heard, EQ plugins are pretty damn good, I’ve heard lots of good feedback on the Fabfilter ProQ3….so may look into that one when the time comes.

Thanks again all!

[ef37a]

Post "The Great SoS Mic Preamp Comparison of Oct 2012" there can be few here that still think mic pres make much of a difference to the signals they amplify?

The only counter to that is if you want a pre with "attitude" "warmf" whatever the current buzzword is, to 'colour' your signal. Do note however that once "Attitiuded" (aka "distortion" IMHO) you are very unlikely to be able to reverse the effect.

Dave.

[Arpangel]

Analogy I have for myself
If I put a brilliant lens on a £200 mirrorless camera the photographs will look brilliant provided I'm a half decent photographer.
If I put a crappy lens on a £4k mirrorless camera the photographs will look crappy in comparison no matter how decent a photographer I am.

Audio interfaces even £100ish nowadays such as Focusrite Scarlet 3rd gen 2i2 have decent enough mic pres such that they can take advantage of a brilliant mic to make real nice recordings.
As long as we know what we are doing and or are following well regarded recording guide books articles as published by SoS such as https://www.soundonsound.com/news/recor ... ok-updated

There are those today that just keep on obsessing, moaning, and comparing the minutiae of microphones, interfaces, etc etc, when in reality, even the most basic, and low budget gear, is capable of producing amazing results compared to what we had when some of the worlds greatest recordings were made, and we had to listen to them through a haze of crackles pops noise and distortion, that we somehow managed to ignore.
There are two major things I haven’t mentioned yet, that have nothing to do with the equipment itself, or it’s quality, and that’s the "music" and those who made it.
They used equipment that was way below what we have today, in terms of ultimate quality, but they didn’t even think about it, it was just accepted.
We reached a golden plateau around the mid/late 70’s early 80’s when recording technology peaked, it really hasn’t moved on significantly since then, and before you all mention that word digital, IMO it’s made absolutely no difference to the quality of "music" at all, all we do now is crave for even better technical quality, when it’s simply not needed or in any way necessary.

[tea for two]

Analogy I have for myself
If I put a brilliant lens on a £200 mirrorless camera the photographs will look brilliant provided I'm a half decent photographer.
If I put a crappy lens on a £4k mirrorless camera the photographs will look crappy in comparison no matter how decent a photographer I am.

Audio interfaces even £100ish nowadays such as Focusrite Scarlet 3rd gen 2i2 have decent enough mic pres such that they can take advantage of a brilliant mic to make real nice recordings.
As long as we know what we are doing and or are following well regarded recording guide books articles as published by SoS such as https://www.soundonsound.com/news/recor ... ok-updated

There are those today that just keep on obsessing, moaning, and comparing the minutiae of microphones, interfaces, etc etc, when in reality, even the most basic, and low budget gear, is capable of producing amazing results compared to what we had when some of the worlds greatest recordings were made, and we had to listen to them through a haze of crackles pops noise and distortion, that we somehow managed to ignore.

Tru.
Particularly if have an idea of what we are doing and or are following well regarded advice.

::

For my home use to my gammy ears lol
I found Audient iD4 mk1 to have the most neutral mic pre.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/audient-id4.
In comparison to AKAI EiE Pro and Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 I had.
Hands down aesthetic looks of my AKAI EiE Pro is my favourite of any audio interface : avid, prism, rme, uad.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/akai-eie-pro

[Drew Stephenson]

They used equipment that was way below what we have today, in terms of ultimate quality, but they didn’t even think about it, it was just accepted.
We reached a golden plateau around the mid/late 70’s early 80’s when recording technology peaked, it really hasn’t moved on significantly since then, and before you all mention that word digital, IMO it’s made absolutely no difference to the quality of "music" at all, all we do now is crave for even better technical quality, when it’s simply not needed or in any way necessary.

Sorry Arpangel but you are conflating two different things and colouring it all with your own sense of nostalgia.
Recording technology has moved on hugely since the 70s and 80s, in terms of capability, fidelity, flexibility, price and accessibility. It's just nonsense to say otherwise and you contradict yourself in the same post.
Whether the quality of music has improved, or whether the recording techniques and processes have improved is a totally different subject, and one that is completely subjective.

But anyway, back to the OP, you can add all manner or colour or attitude using plugins according to whatever the track needs and it will vary for every job. But a good mic is always a good mic and will never lose its usefulness.

[ef37a]

Quite right Drew!
IF your definition of "quality music technology" is limited to (convenient shorthand) "pop" then maybe it WAS good enough in the 80s? But if like me you were never satisfied with the dynamic range of tape and disc for classical music it definitely was not! I was perfectly happy to play bass for Beatles covers yonks ago and really enjoyed jamming with son on Quo songs but I always went back to Bach and Mozzy and others for 'relaxed' music and even the best (DG) pressings had audible hiss on them and it was IMPOSSIBLE to keep them clean!

Even 'digital' has improved over the years. We now have converters with vanishingly low jitter and though I dare say one needs some seriously good speakers and rooms to get the benefit I know it is there.

Dave.

[tea for two]

Hey all,

b) getting a really nice preamp + EQ module (looking at the Heritage Audio HA81 Elite)

Heya
There are those on here forum that use software emulation Neve and or SSL channel strip with eq.
I've been looking into getting a software Neve emulation channel strip from
https://www.plugin-alliance.com/
Only purchase when on offer sale $29.99.

I currently use a Pultec emulation eq bundled with Logic.

[sonics]

I've been looking into getting a software Neve emulation channel strip from
https://www.plugin-alliance.com/

Mr. Neve has a lot to answer for!
I have to add this. Don't forget to try out the Brainworx bx_console Focusrite SC. One of my favourite channel strips. Designed by RN.

[tea for two]

"The Great SoS Mic Preamp Comparison of Oct 2012"

I think SoS can do this comparison once more.
With
Cranborne EC2
Focusrite ISA Two
with let's say Audient id14mk2, Focusrite Clarett+ 2pre, Motu M2.

Posting wav files on the forum to see / hear whether SoS staff, mods, experienced forumees, run of the mill forumees lol as myself
can

1. Guess which is which : offering our reasons.
2. Which we prefer the sound of : offering our reasons.

Obv Hugh has reviewed Cranborne EC2 so should be able to tell it. Others as Bob are using Focusrite ISA Two so should be able to tell it.

[Arpangel]

I always went back to Bach and Mozzy and others for 'relaxed' music and even the best (DG) pressings had audible hiss on them and it was IMPOSSIBLE to keep them clean!

It never bothered me, the deficiencies of our Philco valve stereogram plus surface noise, it was just the way it was, it was never an issue.
Listening to Cream, Helmut Walcha, or Julian Bream, it just didn’t matter, my ears were almost perfect, at age 15, plus it was valves, and the music was beyond reproach.
Anything else didn’t matter.

[Bob Bickerton]

"The Great SoS Mic Preamp Comparison of Oct 2012"

I think SoS can do this comparison once more.
With
Cranborne EC2
Focusrite ISA Two
with let's say Audient id14mk2, Focusrite Clarett+ 2pre, Motu M2.

Posting wav files on the forum to see / hear whether SoS staff, mods, experienced forumees, run of the mill forumees lol as myself
can

1. Guess which is which : offering our reasons.
2. Which we prefer the sound of : offering our reasons.

Obv Hugh has reviewed Cranborne EC2 so should be able to tell it. Others as Bob are using Focusrite ISA Two so should be able to tell it.

Well that may be an interesting exercise for some - especially those who like to lol a lot

But really I'd be happy to use any of the preamps you mention. As I understand it, most competent preamps these days will sound fine, and the differences minimal unless driven, which is not something I'm into.

For me it has a lot to do with confidence and ease of use. Yes, the ISA preamps sound good, but do they sound better than my UAD Apollo preamps? Maybe a little 'fuller' perhaps 'larger than life' - but the truth of the matter is I don't much care. I like the hands-on work flow of an external preamp, that's my priority.

There's so much more to worry about in terms of signal chain - room acoustics, microphone use and placement, quality of musical instruments/voice/musicianship, monitoring.

If you're actually in a position to worry about preamp and converter quality, you might then be in a position to truly assess them.

Bob

[tea for two]

Well that may be an interesting exercise for some - especially those who like to lol a lot

That's me

But really I'd be happy to use any of the preamps you mention.

Love reading this.

There's so much more to worry about in terms of signal chain - room acoustics, microphone use and placement, quality of musical instruments/voice/musicianship, monitoring.

+100

[resistorman]

Hey all,

b) getting a really nice preamp + EQ module (looking at the Heritage Audio HA81 Elite)

Heya
There are those on here forum that use software emulation Neve and or SSL channel strip with eq.
I've been looking into getting a software Neve emulation channel strip from
https://www.plugin-alliance.com/
Only purchase when on offer sale $29.99.

I currently use a Pultec emulation eq bundled with Logic.

I have the Brainworx Neve, Focusrite and SSL channel strips (all purchased on sale), but I I always seem to wind up using the SSL. I set up a new mix with one on every channel. YMMV of course

[Arpangel]

Well that may be an interesting exercise for some - especially those who like to lol a lot

But really I'd be happy to use any of the preamps you mention. As I understand it, most competent preamps these days will sound fine, and the differences minimal unless driven, which is not something I'm into.

For me it has a lot to do with confidence and ease of use. Yes, the ISA preamps sound good, but do they sound better than my UAD Apollo preamps? Maybe a little 'fuller' perhaps 'larger than life' - but the truth of the matter is I don't much care. I like the hands-on work flow of an external preamp, that's my priority.

There's so much more to worry about in terms of signal chain - room acoustics, microphone use and placement, quality of musical instruments/voice/musicianship, monitoring.

If you're actually in a position to worry about preamp and converter quality, you might then be in a position to truly assess them.

Bob

Bob, you’re in danger of talking way too much sense here!
I especially agree with "but the truth of the matter is I don't much care."
Just moving a mic a few inches will make more difference than any preamp could. Changing your monitoring speakers is the second major difference, that’s like moving into a new house!

[ef37a]

I always went back to Bach and Mozzy and others for 'relaxed' music and even the best (DG) pressings had audible hiss on them and it was IMPOSSIBLE to keep them clean!

It never bothered me, the deficiencies of our Philco valve stereogram plus surface noise, it was just the way it was, it was never an issue.
Listening to Cream, Helmut Walcha, or Julian Bream, it just didn’t matter, my ears were almost perfect, at age 15, plus it was valves, and the music was beyond reproach.
Anything else didn’t matter.

No, it probably wouldn't...for you. I have found audio "people" and musicians come as a 'spectrum'. Some, like you Toni (and my son) are excellent musicians but care little about the quality of reproduction. Others (may I cite you Hugh?) are still musically adept but are also finely tuned to the technical quality of the signal path.

The enormous advances in sound recording and reproduction have been forged by both ends of that spectrum and the 'minions' in between. Otherwise we would still use 78s and thorn styli!

Dave.

[Arpangel]

I always went back to Bach and Mozzy and others for 'relaxed' music and even the best (DG) pressings had audible hiss on them and it was IMPOSSIBLE to keep them clean!

It never bothered me, the deficiencies of our Philco valve stereogram plus surface noise, it was just the way it was, it was never an issue.
Listening to Cream, Helmut Walcha, or Julian Bream, it just didn’t matter, my ears were almost perfect, at age 15, plus it was valves, and the music was beyond reproach.
Anything else didn’t matter.

No, it probably wouldn't...for you. I have found audio "people" and musicians come as a 'spectrum'. Some, like you Toni (and my son) are excellent musicians but care little about the quality of reproduction. Others (may I cite you Hugh?) are still musically adept but are also finely tuned to the technical quality of the signal path.

The enormous advances in sound recording and reproduction have been forged by both ends of that spectrum and the 'minions' in between. Otherwise we would still use 78s and thorn styli!

Dave.

I do care about "how I listen to music" but it’s not directly related to audio technical "quality"
The word quality has almost become redundant these days, it’s not important or relevant anymore, regarding the music, or the medium we choose to listen to it on.
When I listen on my 'high quality" stereo, I’m not listening for how deep the bass is, the lack of noise, the nature of the top end etc, I’m just listening to music, and the differences in technical quality (how do you judge that anyway?) are incredibly huge, between different recordings, but these differences don’t affect in any way, my enjoyment of the music.
I’ve know hi-fi people who only buy what they consider to be "good recordings" the music can be 100% pure shite, but as long as it is a "good recording" (?) that’s fine.
It’s like the music is a means to an end, not an end in itself, the equipment is what it’s all about.
Sure, I like to have as big a window on sound as I can, stuff that can reproduce any recording, well, but it’s not something I consciously think about all the time.

[tea for two]

I only have SM58 which according to

My top vocal mic recommendations are -
3. SM58. With a good analogue EQ, you can even make it sound like a U87/TLM103.

So now I'm on the sale special offers $29.99 hunt for an emulation Neve channel strip with EQ from Plugin Alliance either the one Drew uses Plugin Alliance Console N or the one Sonics mentioned bx_console Focusrite SC.
Logic has a bundled emulation Neve 1073 EQ it's alright not too shabby.
I use SM58 for more than just vocal.

[Arpangel]

I only have SM58 which according to

My top vocal mic recommendations are -
3. SM58. With a good analogue EQ, you can even make it sound like a U87/TLM103.

So now I'm on the sale special offers hunt for an emulation Neve channel strip with EQ from Brainworx either the one Drew uses or the one Sonics mentioned
bx_console Focusrite SC.
Logic has a bundled emulation Neve 1073 EQ it's alright not too shabby.
I use SM58 for more than just vocal.

You can make any mic sound like any other mic with a good EQ, if that’s true, why do people spend so much money on mic's?
The SM58 is an awful mic, I hate it, always have done, it reminds me of all those times when it was a case of "it’ll do" as we can’t afford anything better.