• I have never owned a mic preamp.
    Does it make a big difference when creating a profile?


    Can anyone post a profile with and without a mic preamp? (Same amp and settings) I'd love to play/hear the difference in a Kemper profile.

  • Ant, the difference between the sensitivity and fidelity of, say, an SM57 plugged into a "regular" small-format console of the quality we typically see in home studios and what you'd hear when it's passed through a quality mic pre is huge.


    Now, how much of a difference one perceives when comparing this to the Kemper's XLR input will depend on just how good its preamplification is and of course how high-end the dedicated mic pre you choose is.


    It's safe to assume that the differences you hear in quality will translate to the accuracy of Profiles.


    Bottom line - if you plunk down for any half-serious mic pre, IMHO you will reap the benefits over simply plugging straight into the KPA.

  • You will absolutely hear an improvement. The more expensive the better it gets. Personally I'd get something in the range of 800-1500 price bracket. Cheaper than that and you're in the chinese made hobbyist category. Over that and you're in the pro audiophile category.


    The differences in a soloed track will be subtle. But when you have 6-8 guitar tracks on your mix the harshness of the cheap pre starts to show.

  • schreckmusic,
    The Kemper has a good neutral preamp on board, the use of another neutral preamp will not give anything. It makes sense to use those preamps that have their own "coloring", such as Neve ...
    In the archive, an example profile using the built-in preamp and using the
    M ONE Twin All FET Discrete Class A Microphone Preamp & DI
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/sg3h…h0/MicPreampTest.rar?dl=0

  • The Kemper has a good neutral preamp on board, the use of another neutral preamp will not give anything.

    We'll have to agree to disagree, mate.


    A higher-quality neutral preamp will still enhance frequency response and be more dynamically sensitive, IMHO.

  • A modern mic pre as you'd find on budget interfaces and mixers used within its nominal operating thresholds is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from boutique pres costing much, much more. The main differences are of course signal-to-noise ratio (which we know the Kemper can correct for and does quite often automatically when profiling) and available gain (which again won't really be an issue when close-micing a loud tube amp). Sure, some Neve pres and the like have transformers in the signal path that colour the lows and low mids in a very subtle way, which would most likely be useless in a typical high-passed guitar mix, but where the expensive pres really show their value is when they are pushed into saturation. It's here when you can hear the harshness of typically cheaper pres, whereas the more expensive examples tend to sound smoother and warmer. Again, how often you would drive a mic pre into saturation when micing a loud tube amp is speculative, and if you've dialled in your perfect sound on your amp, surely you'd want to capture that as cleanly as possible? Anyway, an expensive pre will not under any circumstances save poor micing technique, a bad room or a substandard microphone. The pre will be the least bang for the buck in improving the signal chain, only marginally ahead of digital converters ;)


    Here's a link to an experiment that Sound on Sound did a few years back investigating this very subject : CLICK!

  • Anyway, an expensive pre will not under any circumstances save poor micing technique, a bad room or a substandard microphone. The pre will be the least bang for the buck in improving the signal chain, only marginally ahead of digital converters ;)


    Here's a link to an experiment that Sound on Sound did a few years back investigating this very subject : CLICK!

    Once again you grace us with your wisdom, good sir! Well spoken :)

  • schreckmusic,
    The Kemper has a good neutral preamp on board, the use of another neutral preamp will not give anything. It makes sense to use those preamps that have their own "coloring", such as Neve ...
    In the archive, an example profile using the built-in preamp and using the
    M ONE Twin All FET Discrete Class A Microphone Preamp & DI
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/sg3h…h0/MicPreampTest.rar?dl=0

    Thanks for this! I was kind of doubtful but since I've never actually done A/B tests but with this I easily could. Difference between the profiles wasn't huge, a lot less audible than I expected. There is a difference in favor of the more expensive preamp but not worth the price difference in any way.


    Comparison in a mix, sorry for the mindless butt rock. :D
    Kemper vs NOS fight


  • Well I'll be, SamBro'.


    Guess that means that all the gushing statements I've heard over the years from dozens of dynamic mic owners (I was specifically referring to these as this is the sort the OP wanted to compare when plugged directly into the Kemper), at least half of whom were referring to their SM57s, that upon passing them through high-spec pre's for the first time, which they'd previously figured wouldn't matter where dynamic mic's are concerned and had therefor never bothered before, to paraphrase the three most-used descriptions I heard, "the sound just seemed to open up", "the mic literally seemed to come alive" and "I had no idea it could sound so good".


    Perhaps they all imagined it. That said, I concluded that there must've been something in this due to the weight of numbers involved as well as the similarity of the anecdotal evidence.


    EDIT:
    When I say high-spec I'm obviously talking about excellent S/N ratios, THD and so on, but just as importantly perhaps, bandwidths of 2-300kHz. Yes, passing a 16kHz mic through 250kHz-bandwidth pre's is like filming Southpark in 5k video, but somehow my lil' ol' mind has always been able to see the utility in this. Going with that analogy, the integrity of edge definition would be greater using the higher-res method, even 'though the programme material itself doesn't demand it, at least not superficially.

  • It also depends on the source of course, Nicky, and I was referring to using mic pres in relation to micing guitar amps with dynamic mics. A ribbon mic might require the extra gain of a boutique pre, but then again probably not when close-micing a cab. Having said that, the SOS blind test used an acoustic piano as the source, which has more complicated harmonic content that would make any differences between pres more apparent, and yet there was almost nothing between the different units. Again, this is all while using the pres within their nominal operating ranges. More gain on a budget pre generally equals more self noise etc., depending on the specs.


    I'm not quite sure what you mean, when you say the bandwidth of a mic pre? If you mean that they can capture up to 250 kHz frequencies, then I think that that would only be detrimental when it comes to A/D conversion; the more high frequency content, the more likely there is to be aliasing, depending on the efficiency of the filters in the converters, again potentially leading to harshness and unwanted harmonic distortion. I assume that the KPA's low pass filter is around 22 kHz before conversion (going off the spdif sample rate limit of 44.1 kHz), meaning that anything above that isn't worth regarding anyway. The South Park analogy doesn't really work, either. Either the pre can pass a frequency of 16kHz or it can't - there isn't any high definition version of a 16kHz tone, only a pure tone or one that has harmonics due to THD, which has nothing to do with bandwidth. Sorry to piss on your chips, my man.


    Regarding people's reactions to the sudden increase in performance of their mics after upgrading pres, it is entirely possible, depending on what they came from and what they came to. Most modern budget pres are a world away from the rubbish that was peddled before the surge in serious home recording and the death of the residential super studios. That said, there's also a strong case for confirmation bias, as was alluded to in the SOS test. Only a true blind test would reveal whether one really had an impact over the other, and that's not something that most people bother with.

  • Good man! :) It's so easy to get distracted by gear - and even using it (and lack thereof) as an excuse. Been there myself (and still visit from time to time :D )

    Well and I have had some pretty bad luck when it comes to new gear. My Kemper (open box) had issues and was repaired (Kemper has fantastic customer support!). Now the (B Stock) Adam A5X's I bought are both being repaired. From now on no more open box or B Stock for me, only brand new.


    I told the Adam rep how upset I was that both monitors started to have issues. He said its rare and that it could have been UPS / Fedex banged them up during transport. The boxes they arrived in (monitor product boxes) had a few old shipping labels on them. I do not know how many times they were shipped back and forth even before I purchased them.

  • Easily-explained, Ant - Ace Ventura had a hand... and foot... in delivering the packages.


    Sorry to piss on your chips, my man.

    Not at all, SamBro'. I was only going by what I'd heard so many folks say, really, with perhaps a little confirmation bias thrown in myself, it would seem. Thank you so much for the info, bud.


    Here, have a soggy chip, mate. No, really, it's on me. :D

  • The reason expensive pre amps are worth it is when you start mixing tracks. I had a large Mackie for years and years and used to fight it getting my final mixes to sound right. When I got some expensive pres it became so much easier to mix. Also, as Nicky alluded to and Rupert Neve swore by, having an amp that reponds way above human hearing makes a difference, a more open sound. The secret weapon on the Avalon 737 is the 32K EQ setting. When I was 18 we got a test record and clearly heard 20k and now days, the last time I checked my hearing was cutting off right below 15k but when I crank the 32k knob on the Avalon I can clearly hear a difference.


    So yes, profiling through a quality pre will make a positive difference in the results. Also, anything mentioned in this thread hasn't convinced me to sell my Langevin DVC. :)

  • The reason expensive pre amps are worth it is when you start mixing tracks. I had a large Mackie for years and years and used to fight it getting my final mixes to sound right. When I got some expensive pres it became so much easier to mix. Also, as Nicky alluded to and Rupert Neve swore by, having an amp that reponds way above human hearing makes a difference, a more open sound. The secret weapon on the Avalon 737 is the 32K EQ setting. When I was 18 we got a test record and clearly heard 20k and now days, the last time I checked my hearing was cutting off right below 15k but when I crank the 32k knob on the Avalon I can clearly hear a difference.


    So yes, profiling through a quality pre will make a positive difference in the results. Also, anything mentioned in this thread hasn't convinced me to sell my Langevin DVC. :)

    Problem is though, that the KPA is digital; it'll truncate anything above 22kHz (an estimate based on other converters that operate at 44.1kHz sampling rate), so anything above that is a waste of time and resources.


    As for the 32K knob on your Avalon, don't forget that eq bells are exactly that; they affect frequencies above and below the boosted frequency, more so as you increase the gain if it follows a classic Pultec-like design. Of course, a narrow Q will lessen the boost of surrounding frequencies, but usually sounds horrible. The same goes for shelves and filters.