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.