Topic: separate preamp and recorder vs all-in-one unit?

[jnorman34]

i see that many of you are choosing to run multi-box setups, such as mics>littlebox>M10, where you are using nice mics, running those into a stand-alone preamp, be it a V3 or naiant or sonosax, and then unto the line inputs on a small recorder which doesnt have XLR inputs. 

can you please describe for me why you chose that route as opposed to using a single unit such as a PMD661 or similar?  thanks.

[Scooter123]

Because nice mikes sound better and they need phantom power supplied by the preamp.

[aosone]

Having good gear is the easy part, but even the best gear will give you a crappy recording if you don't have the mics in the right location.

[Napo]

Tapers start with the basic set-up, mics and recorder (with battery box, if needed), and then build up their rigs with preamps and more than one set of mics for the pleasure of having options in different field recording circumstances.

I started with CA11>ST9100>M-10. I have moved to MK22>CMR>TinyBox>M10 and now I am dreaming for Milabs mics and an SDmixerpre.

[page]

Once you get excellent equipment, whether you run a preamp or use the gain on your deck is largely one of sonic flavor preference.

This is all based on having an all-in-one box that is good enough to start with.

[jnorman34]

sorry, i didnt make my question quite clear enough.  i was not asking about using an all in one unit with its internal mics - i recognize that external mics will almost always be better.

i was asking about using mics>littlebox>M10  vs  mics>pmd661  type of arrangment.  why use 2 boxes instead of one?  are the preamps in the little box significantly better than the preamps in the pmd661 or fostex fr-le2?    if so, which single box solutions have GOOD preamps? - the sound devices 702?  sonosax minir82?  edirol R-4?  tascam Dr680?

thanks.

[darby]

once again it depends on personal taste and application

I PREFER the sound of my preamps to the sound of the internals on both my Tascam units
plus I had my V3 before I started recording in 24 bit and certainly didn't want to get rid it
I use the Littlebox > M10 combo because I had the Littlebox first and can use the M10 various other ways

as far as the the other units you mentioned compared to the Littlebox
besides the Sound Devices and the Oade R4 Pro... I don't know since I haven't used them
I like the sound of the preamp on those units, but don't wish to spend that much on a recorder

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

once again it depends on personal taste and application

I PREFER the sound of my preamps to the sound of the internals on both my Tascam units

This my opinion as well.  I have several mic/preamps combinations and specific sounds that I like for certain situations. I match my gear for the recording environment of the evening.

That said, for someone starting out I feel that there are advantages to using a reasonable quality all-in-one unit.  The number of extra wires and batteries is reduced.  The complexity of trouble shooting in the field is reduced.  Many of the all in one units offer line or digital in so if one later decides that an external preamp or ADC is preferred, the internal preamp or ADC can be bypassed.  Then later when a low profile situation arises or if one is travelling, the fall back mics>all-in-one-box solution can be used.  Very often when I visit a questionable venue or a hostile environment, I'll go back to just the DPA>722 configuration to keep things small and secure.  It's nice to have that option.

[stevetoney]

JNorman, I asked myself this same question back a couple of years before I started experimenting with gear combo's of all sizes and shapes because honestly I initially felt the tapers were fairly anal and that it didn't make much sense to carry lots of extra gear when a good quality all-in-one could do the trick.  Now after going through a personal adventure of trying everything out on my own, I've changed my thinking. 

So for my own purposes, the answer is simply that none of the all-in-one units sound as good as the sound provided from the better sounding preamps.  For me, it really all comes down to that.  That said, I've turned fairly anal about my sound.  So in that respect I was right...that tapers with lots of components are fairly anal about their sound.  I'm not sure the typical audience member would discern between a recording made with an all-in-one versus one made with a great sounding external preamp.  However, after testing and listening to alot of gear myself, I've trained my ear to know what I like and what I don't.  The bottom line is that my recordings with my preferred external preamp sounds better than me to any all-in-one I've tried.

[Belexes]

I don't do a lot of open taping, so in my case I opted for an all-in-one FR2-LE but had it in for a mod by Busman.  It's nice not having to lug around all the extra gear and interconnects.

If I did more open taping and had higher-end mics than the BSC1's, I think I'd consider mics > pre > deck

[datbrad]

sorry, i didnt make my question quite clear enough.  i was not asking about using an all in one unit with its internal mics - i recognize that external mics will almost always be better.

i was asking about using mics>littlebox>M10  vs  mics>pmd661  type of arrangment.  why use 2 boxes instead of one?  are the preamps in the little box significantly better than the preamps in the pmd661 or fostex fr-le2?    if so, which single box solutions have GOOD preamps? - the sound devices 702?  sonosax minir82?  edirol R-4?  tascam Dr680?

thanks.

The units with "GOOD" preamps are all the ones you mentioned, and you should add Nagra to that list. That being said, myself and a vast number of others hear an improvement with outboard preamps even with the Sound Devices and other top priced recorders. In my experience, it's not simply the quality of the preamp circuit built into the recorders that is really the issue, IMO. I purchased a PMD661 with the Oade Warm Mod upgraded preamps, and yet I still use outboard preamps. The built in preamps, even with the upgrades, I still view mainly as a backup in the event my preamp fails, or in very rare cases where size requirements of a situation call for it.

For me at least, I have always found that in loud rock shows recording off the PA, being able to harness the sound properly with an outboard preamp, then feeding a more even line level signal to the recorder works better than trying to handle the entire job using only the recorder's gain control. The recorder's gain control works more like a trim when using line in and I find that easier in the field. An added benefit is the strain on the recorder's power supply is eased with the preamp handling the phantom power to the mics. You get signifiantly longer battery life running a recorder line in, or digital in, than mic in with phantom.

[datbrad]

Once you get excellent equipment, whether you run a preamp or use the gain on your deck is largely one of sonic flavor preference.

This is all based on having an all-in-one box that is good enough to start with.

This is not completely accurate, for reasons I explained in my last post.

[page]

Once you get excellent equipment, whether you run a preamp or use the gain on your deck is largely one of sonic flavor preference.

This is all based on having an all-in-one box that is good enough to start with.

This is not completely accurate, for reasons I explained in my last post.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[datbrad]

Once you get excellent equipment, whether you run a preamp or use the gain on your deck is largely one of sonic flavor preference.

This is all based on having an all-in-one box that is good enough to start with.

This is not completely accurate, for reasons I explained in my last post.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Guess so, but you seem to be in the minority as most 7 series owners I know run outboard preamps, and it's not just for a difference in flavor. Certainly the 7 series is one of the better recorders out-of-the-box for use as an all in one, but I have never heard a top grade preamp paired with one that only offered a difference in sonic character, rather than a noticably "cleaner" sound, for lack of a better word. That and the control advantages I mentioned in my earlier post.

Edit to add: While we are on the topic, you should check out CK's V2 up in the YS for $600. If you ran your Beyers through that into your 722, it would sound better than running the mics straight in, I promise.

[jlykos]

Everybody has different reasons.  For me personally, I can stealth with a small recorder and I can't with a 671, for example.  The flexibility of running an open or stealth setup with the same piece of gear while only paying for one recorder appeals to me.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Certainly the 7 series is one of the better recorders out-of-the-box for use as an all in one, but I have never heard a top grade preamp paired with one that only offered a difference in sonic character, rather than a noticably "cleaner" sound, for lack of a better word.

Someone here recommended that I was running the 722 too hot and I should run with the peak lower - just peaking on the first red LED - and then normalize before resampling.  I did try that and the sound improved noticeably.  So I do that now when I run straight in. 

Still, I really love the portico ahead of the 722s ADC.

[stevetoney]

Brad makes excellent points...I'm in the same boat where I paid for an Oade upgrade and while I think it sounds great, it's still not as good as my outboard preamp of choice.  I also enjoy the flexibility of always having a ready backup because there was once when the show was about to start and my preamp was giving me issues, so I just unplugged the external and within seconds had my all-in-one rolling instead as Plan B.  Saved the day for me.

While I agree that I get different flavors out of my different inboard and outboard preamp options, my decision to use external preamps was driven much more by sound improvements than by having flavor options.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

I used to use a separates (ua5>jb3).  Now I use an AIO (Oade ACM HD-P2). 

For myself, I enjoy the convenience of having a single unit that does everything...  However, I have also been wanting to add a nice preamp in front for several reasons:  better adjustment of individual channels (I find the single knob on the HD-P2 a PITA) and variety of "sound".  Now if only I could find that "just right" unit for that low low price...

Terry

[moooose]

Just my personal experience.

I started with a pocket recorder (korg MR-1) and external mics, then I added a SD Mixpre in order to get a clearer, more detailed sound.

I switched to a Sony D50 because I wanted more flexibility. I mean:  - point and shoot? Internal mics; - better sound and small setup? External mics + D50; - best sound but bulkier? External mics + Mixpre + D50.

Eventually I found out that I always used the Mixpre in order to get what I like and moved back to a single box, a SD 702. Anyway I kept the D50 for point and shoot recordings.

It wasn't a linear path. But I think that these choices  really depend on personal needs, taste, craziness...

[acidjack]

I think it has a lot to do with people thinking more=better and spending more $$=better.  "If I have a $1000 outboard preamp to record PA systems, it will DEFINITELY sound better." 

I semi-kid, of course.  If I recorded symphonies or nature material or stuff for film, maybe I would consider a really stellar outboard pre (though really, I am at a loss as to why people think the SD pres aren't "good enough").   But I don't. I record rock music. I also live in New York City, so I carry my gear on public transportation to every show.  For me, having an all-in-one box makes a hell of a lot of sense in terms of size and weight.  I have the R-44 with the Oade "concert" mod and I think my recordings are quite good.  And frankly, based on my buddy running similar gear, I'm not sure I really needed that mod, either. 

In terms of sound quality only, I really don't see the point of running mics>high-end pre>analog inputs on M10.... even if at the mythical "unity gain" it seems to me you are introducing the analog components of a rather cheap (albeit, well-made) piece of gear into your chain.  Does it actually sound worse?  Probably not.  But if you are the person who thinks a $1000+ pre is necessary, it would surprise me if you couldn't "hear" the M10 in that gear chain.

It seems to me that if you want to go the typical route, something with digital inputs, like the Sony D50, makes more sense for this type setup. 

But this is all just opinion, of course.  Lots of good recordings are made all kinds of ways.

[todd e]

sorry, i didnt make my question quite clear enough.  i was not asking about using an all in one unit with its internal mics - i recognize that external mics will almost always be better.

i was asking about using mics>littlebox>M10  vs  mics>pmd661  type of arrangment.  why use 2 boxes instead of one?  are the preamps in the little box significantly better than the preamps in the pmd661 or fostex fr-le2?    if so, which single box solutions have GOOD preamps? - the sound devices 702?  sonosax minir82?  edirol R-4?  tascam Dr680?

thanks.

myself and a vast number of others hear an improvement with outboard preamps even with the Sound Devices

QFT

[Shawn]

IMO taping is like every other hobby that grown men get involved in. There is a bit of unspoken competition over who has the nicest gear. There are also people with a lot of expendable income that really enjoy the hobby and just really like having nice gear. There are also people that have very specific preferences and will spend a large amount of money to get a precise result even if that result is only subjectively superior to the results from much less expensive equipment. Audio gear also suffers greatly from diminishing returns. A $3k pair of mics isn't 5x better than a $600 pair of mics.

I prefer all-in-one type devices for convenience. I only need to power one device, I have a smaller gig bag, less parts and pieces to deal with, and I get consistent and easily repeatable results.

I've run everything under the sun. I've owned $4k mics, some of the finest portable preamps in the world, nice stand alone recorders, $100 mics, $50 recorders, and basically everything in between. I realized long ago that carrying $7000 worth of separate pieces of gear into a show was overkill for my needs. Sure I made great recordings with it, but I listened to tapes I made with a $1000 rig that I felt were ~95% as good. If you want to bring in your 4 channel schoeps tubes > portico > benchmark > 788t to a show that is your prerogative and I have no problem with it. I can make recordings that sound pretty good on my mid level playback gear with gear that costs 1/20th as much, and I don't have to mess with a big chain of gear to get it done.

Of course I'd rather listen to a recording made with a $600 rig setup on stage for a jazz show than a $20k rig from the section of a shed.

[Scooter123]

Location and Luck have more to do with a good recording than equipment. 

I had a pull last month with a drunken girl with a speech impediment that talked to me the entire concert..........

No preamp could fix her. 

[Walstib62]

I think Shawn pretty much hit the nail on the head!

[Belexes]

I had a pull last month with a drunken girl with a speech impediment that talked to me the entire concert..........

That is a deadly combination.

Last couple posts about location are so very true. Being in the best spot in the venue with average gear can produce above average results when compared to those that like to look at all the pretty colored lights on their gear from a sub-par location.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I had a pull last month with a drunken girl with a speech impediment that talked to me the entire concert..........

I didn't see that in the kick down posts.  stop the hoarding. 

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Of course I'd rather listen to a recording made with a $600 rig setup on stage for a jazz show than a $20k rig from the section of a shed.

I agree that position can have a significant impact but honestly there are too many people on here who use that single variable to argue that their <insert something like CSBs into a Nomad> from FOB sound as good as the MK41s in the section behind the board.  No chance, sorry, never heard any example of this to be the case.  I understand that you posted that hyperbolic comparison for effect but seriously if you have open access to the stage and all other things being equal, which rig would you prefer to run?

[OFOTD]

Of course I'd rather listen to a recording made with a $600 rig setup on stage for a jazz show than a $20k rig from the section of a shed.

I agree that position can have a significant impact but honestly there are too many people on here who use that single variable to argue that their <insert something like CSBs into a Nomad> from FOB sound as good as the MK41s in the section behind the board.  No chance, sorry, never heard any example of this to be the case.  I understand that you posted that hyperbolic comparison for effect but seriously if you have open access to the stage and all other things being equal, which rig would you prefer to run?

Playback. Playback. Playback.   In the end that always ends up being the barometer of whatever gear you're running.  If your '91 Accord is your playback then the differences you'd hear from different audio sources will always be negligible.   If you've got a nice home theater setup or nice studio monitors you hear the differences that the '91 Accord  can't produce.  That's really the heart of the matter.   

There are also people that have very specific preferences and will spend a large amount of money to get a precise result even if that result is only subjectively superior to the results from much less expensive equipment. Audio gear also suffers greatly from diminishing returns. A $3k pair of mics isn't 5x better than a $600 pair of mics.

The results are only subjective if you don't have 'very specific preferences'.  Money has nothing to do with those preferences since everyone's are different.   For me my DPA's do sound 5x better than say 'CSBs into a Nomad'.    If your preferences afford you the opportunity to fill those preferences with a $600 rig then more power to ya.   If I could I would as well.   


So to the OP.  I prefer separate components to get to my own 'very specific preferences' but I have enjoyed tapes from AIO's as well.  480>ACM671 is a power combo IMO.

[Shawn]

I understand that you posted that hyperbolic comparison for effect but seriously if you have open access to the stage and all other things being equal, which rig would you prefer to run?

all things being equal if I had to choose between a 4 channel schoeps tube mic rig with top shelf separate pre, adc, and recorder and rig consisting of a set of good mics (AKG 480 for example)  > into a decent standalone device (oade mod r44). I'd run the AKG rig every time. There was a time where I would have run the big rig. There was a time when I did run a rig nearly that complex ( sans tube mics). IMO it's not worth the effort and the cost for my needs. If someone needs that gear to get the sound they want I have no problem with that. It also made more sense to me run a big nice rig when I was recording 50-60 shows a year. Now I record maybe 10 a year.

I acknowledge that diminishing returns from expensive gear and recording location both have their limits with respect to positive and negative effects on the final product.  No one can successfully argue that location alone will result in a better recording regardless of gear, and no one can successfully argue that "better" gear alone will result in a better recording.

My comment about recording on-stage versus the section of a shed was really about the fact that I prefer to record in situations that are more likely to result in very high quality recordings. I'm not a big fan of dragging my gear out to a shed to record FOB to make a recording that sounds.... like an audience recording from a shed. $20k rig or not... it sounds like an audience recording from a shed. Which is fine, but not my preferred situation and end result. I'd rather go tape The Bad Plus on stage than Phish FOB. that's all.

[Shawn]

Playback. Playback. Playback.   In the end that always ends up being the barometer of whatever gear you're running. 

I agree playback is important. I have a room dedicated specifically to playback with a nice 24 bit playback system, with high end speakers, and mid level audiophile amplification. I don't think a 4 channel DPA > grace > sound devices recording sounds that much better than a 481 > ACM 671 recording. Different? Yes. measurably better? no not really. I do have some preferences. Generally speaking I do like the way schoeps sound on my playback. I prefer beyerdynamic over AKG on my playback. I don't like the way neumanns sound on my playback. blah blah blah. I just don't get wrapped up in thinking I have to have this specific sound  any longer. I want to make solid recordings that sound good on my playback and I can do that with a nice mid level rig (AKG > oade R4). I don't care if it doesn't have that exact schoeps sheen or if it has that creamy portico sound.

For me my DPA's do sound 5x better than say 'CSBs into a Nomad'. 

they ought to since they cost about 25 times more 


don't get me wrong. I totally understand the desire to have a specific sound. I used to be that way with my taping gear. I am still that way with my guitar gear. I have a very nice guitar rig that is far better than my playing abilities. I could sound 95% as good for much less money than what I have invested but you'll have to pry that gear out of my cold dead hands.

[jnorman34]

OP here - just wanted to thank everyone for all the great replies.  great forum.