Test, Do Expensive Mic Preamps Make A Difference? with sound clips

Well, low noise, flat response and just a hint of mojo is the universally-appealling option IMHO. That way you can patch any instrument in with confidence that it'll be captured honestly.

For specific applications such as always mic'ing a particular amp and cab, singer's voice, a sax or whatever, engineers generally settle on their favourite colours for the particular sources involved. Given the budgets of "big" and "proper" studios, this isn't surprising.

For the rest of us, my original prescription stands.

Quote from Monkey_Man

flat response

Mhhh... I believe that the fascination in the world of audio devices comes from the differences in sound instead! I mean, certainly the most loved pres are not the most linear ones

Context, my dear Gianfranco.

If ever there was an out-of-context quote...

Quote

flat response is the universally-appealling option IMHO

... Better?

no, seriously I believe that (within a general transparency) the differences among audio devices just come from their non-linearities. Otherwise there would be no need for tens of different top-of-the-line circuitry and designs and for top studios using several of them. If you thing of it, "personality" means just a deviation from flatness and total transparency.
basically, a sound engineer chooses a pre because of its personality and because they love how it sounds, not for its flatness (provided they don't distort, have a good dynamic range etc).

just my opinion of course

You're only confirming part of what I said, Gianfranco. Re-read my post, or read on if you dare(!)...

In case you missed it, I suggested that if you can only afford one preamp (for use on all mic sources), "low noise, flat response and just a hint of mojo is the universally-appealling option IMHO."

The mojo is to minimise sterility. The flat response is to enable you to capture whichever instruments are needed as faithfully as possible as and when necessary. You may have to record flute, cello, acoustic guitar, trumpet, vocals, mic'd bass-amp cabinets... pretty much an "infinite" variety of tonal characteristics and personalities.

Now, and I'm only repeating myself here in the hope that you'll acknowledge that my "advice" was sound(!) in the first place, if I were in a situation where budget allowed a collection of high-end preamps, I'd surely select an array of "colours", as you so rightly put it, that allowed me to place each source in the most favourable light possible for recording. The trouble is, if one can only afford one pre, which colour do you pick? The very fact that you've acknowledged that different sources are best seen in different lights (preamp colours) dictates that in this situation one would have to select the most neutral (equal amounts of all colours) preamp possible. That would be a reference preamp, which is super-flat and... sterile, hence my recommendation for something that is essentially flat but has mojo, and yes, that is possible. My monitors are an example of this.

In short, what you're suggesting will result, probably sooner than later IMHO, in a clash of "personalities" if that one coloured pre is all you have to record with. A pre that's great for woolly-baritone voices probably won't sound great on trumpet; it'd probably send folks running to their mamas. Please understand that I agree with your reasoning; I just feel that you appear to have missed the thrust of my post, which was to suggest a reasonable compromise for "the rest of us" who can only afford a single mic preamp, and even then, most of us don't even want to have to buy one of these things. LOL

Take care mate.

What you write makes a lot of sense my friend!
As a matter of fact tho, there's nothing like a pre that doesn't colour a sound, and the same goes with cabs\monitors.
Which colour to pick? The only meaningful answer would be (and actually is): "the one you like best".
Note that this is what we already do... Look for example at the story of the CLRs Vs. other cabs (even FR): while I've always praised them as the smartest design and performance in that price range and above, and have declared that, when it comes to a linear cab, the more linear the better, many have responded that "better is always subjective". Which translates to "if it sounds better to me, that's better for me".

IOW, when we define an audio device "euphonic", we always imply that it's able to capture\reproduce reality "in a good way". We imply, by this, that it's not only faithful to reality, but that it also shows is n a good light, so to speak.
OTOH, if we don't like the way a device - while being more linear on paper - captures\reproduces reality, we call it "sterile", or "cold".

Trust me, everyone will always choose something that sounds better to them over something with better specs: from the average Joe to the top producer. And this is truer, the more the person trusts their ears.

Then there are people who can't choose by their ear, but this is a different story.

Preamp quality
My experience with <$600 stereo preamps is that you can tell there is more "mud" in the way of the cheaper ones. Like putting a hand in front of your mouth "mud". After that up to the $1500 (again stereo) it gets really hard to tell the difference and choice in microphone pairing with preamp take over. Above that it's mostly in the hands of the performance and the recording engineer's choices. After all, who would choose a transparent lifeless cover over a performance with feeling that falls into place? It's why we STILL listen to old recordings despite the technology.

I do think you get what you pay for in the $100->$1500 range (stereo) and after that it appears more the right tool for the job than any lacking in the electronics. Of course, if you're rendering to a compressed format played back through 4" speakers or earbuds, then none of it matters as much once you're past the $250 range.

Transparency Definition?
I think we need to define "transparent" a bit more. I think in this area we are using it in a relative way, not an absolute way. People look to the microphone/preamp pairing to assuage problems with the real vocalist's voice. So taming a shrill high on a female vox, or giving it more mids, or taking sibilance out from a male vocal or adding more presence to it, etc. Then, applying compression, fx like ADT/pitch correction/reverb/eq carving, etc all give me the clear impression that 99% of the engineers and audience out there want a HYPER performance and NOT the real transparent thing since, oh, about 1900. So we are talking about "more transparent" in some degree to "colored" like what a tube mic or tube preamp might impart on a vocal. Even instruments. Perhaps there is the need to capture the "most transparent" performance so there is a less-colored initial signal to start manipulating with to create that hyper performance. But the end result is anything but what I would think of as true transparency. If this is splitting hairs and well-known, forgive the paragraph. I just felt it needs to be said to understand the limited range of the definition.

Performance trumps
In the end, what trumps ALL is the performance. I recently heard an album by John Mellancamp done on a 1955 2-track tape machine with a period microphone stuck in the middle of the room and it beat most of the flat life-less pop performances I hear around today. So technology and chops even don't replace feel if it all locks into place. That all said, I am guilty of obsessing over the technology of capturing a professional quality performance, but that's part of the hobby I like to indulge in my spare time because I'm just not made-up of continuous historical performances, haha.

In my view, if you can only afford ONE preamp, go with a clean, transparent one WIHTOUT too much mojo.

This is dependent on application, obviously; I'm thinking of the scenario where you want to record diverse sources. Say, acoustic guitar, violin, trumpet, guitar cabinet, vocals...

If you capture a clean signal, you can to some extent add the mojo afterwards (saturation, compression, lopping off the peaks, EQ). Harder to go the other way.

If you're recording a guitar amp, I'd say any mojo of the mic preamp is far overshadowed by the amp itself (and the mic, mic placement, guitar, tone and gain controls etc etc). Sure, if you have the budget and the talent (and I think this last one is far too often taken way too lightly), then go for the big guns/a big collection. Most of us here, however, are amateurs who would do better taking the advice of professionals with a grain of salt (because mostly what they say is actually aimed at other professionals whether they are aware of it or not).

Oftentimes tests like these are TOO analytical in their approach. Say, using the same mic and mic placement for each preamp, not adjusting the amp controls (if it were a guitar amp) etc etc. What does that tell you? Not that much. In a real world application you'd tailor these variables to the specific setup rather than going with some more or less arbitrary setup chosen in order to ensure "a fair comparison" - which, in my view, is anything but.

Yes. For multiple applications, you're agreeing with my "prescription", Michael, of "low noise, flat response and just a hint of mojo". Just a hint. Enough to preclude the pre from sounding sterile.

I also agree with Gianfranco's comments about it coming down to what the user thinks sounds best in the real world.

Bd, that was a great post mate. Have to agree with you too!

OK, group hug...

[Hands out freshly-printed lyric copies of Kumbayah...]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I wonder if all the preamps have the same input impedance, too. That might also make a difference in sound.

What the SOS article concluded was that when preamps operate within their nominal ranges, there is very little to tell them apart, whether they cost £200 or £2000. However, start pushing them towards their clipping threshold (ie into the occasional red led) and you start to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. As this is pretty standard practice for most folks dabbling in recording (I've sat in sessions where Michael Brauer had the needles on the VU meters of especially bass and drum tracks pinned to the right!), it's no surprise that the more musically appealing the saturation, the more popular the pre. That just so seems to go hand in hand with the price tag of said pre...

This is in line with some opinions by pros on gearslutz about UAD plugin preamps. Within normal use they approximate their hardware counterparts but depart when pushed. The UA stuff is closer than the non-UA stuff.

The conclusion was that for away-from-studio usage, they are a fine professional compromise, but in studio, why not use the real preamps.