Topic: Vintage vs Modern Mic Preamps

[fanofjam]

I recently bought the book called 'The Recording Engineers Handbook' by Bobby Owsinski.  On Page 56, he says...

"Why A Separate Preamp?

You might ask, if nearly every DAW interface and console has its own mic pres, then why use an outboard one?  There's usually only one answer: because a dedicated unit sounds a lot better.

An outboard mic pre generally provides higher highs and lower lows (meaning it has better frequency response), and it's sound output is clearer and cleaner."


A little later on the same page, it says the following...
 

"Vintage Mic Preamps

They just don't make them like they used to.  At least that's what a lot of engineers think when selecting a mic pre.  There's a sound to these units that's been difficult to duplicate in modern gear, except in rare exceptions.  Because of this philosophy, some of the most desirable mic amps were made in the 60's and are actually cannibalized sections of recording consoles from that era.

So why does the old stuff sound different (let's not use 'better' because it's such a relative term) than the new?  Very broadly speaking, it's the iron inside, meaning the transformers and inductors used routinely in older gear that gets substituted with modern electronic equivalents because of size, weight, and cost.  So why not make transformers like they did back then?  Although some companies try, the fact of the matter is that many of these transformers were custom made for the particular unit and just aren't available anymore.  Another factor in the difference of sound can be attributed to the fact that older units used discrete (individual) electronic components that could be properly matched to the circuit, while modern units tend to utilize cookie cutter-type integrated circuits (a complete circuit on a chip) to attempt to achieve the same end."

Thought this was an interesting take from a pro and kinda validates my own affection for vintage gear.  Curious about other's on ts.com thoughts on this subject.

[***Note that the above passages were taken directly from 'The Recording Engineers Handbook' without permission.  All rights are reserved by Bobby Owsinski.] 

[HealthCov Chris]

Thanks for starting up this thread.  Lots to say, but i'll keep it short to start. 

I've progressed through all the SD MixPre series.  Started with the the 6, then got a 10ii, then sold both and got a 6ii.  Finally, sold that and moved down to the 3ii to achieve the smallest bag with one of the best sounding small decks.  The MixPre-3ii will likely be at every show because it fits so easily in the bag. However, I recently bought an SD 702t and a Lunatec V3 because I like the Grace sound and also want to be able to capture digital.  I have never had an external pre in three decades I have been taping.  There is a difference in sound between all three captures (V3 > 702t digi; V3 > MixPre-3ii analog; MixPre-3ii internal pre), and to my ears and taste sounds better (which is completely subjective). 

Now, to your first statement (from the book I believe).  I have heard the argument about being able to add any "pre" sound in post vs adding the actual preamp in the recording chain.  Well...I personally like the idea of getting it honestly if that sound is what I'm looking for.  But really, for me it comes down to how much I love being in the field with my gear and appreciate my work to get the sound I'm looking for.  I don't want to give that up for some extra time in the processing room trying to make is sound like it would if i had just used the correct gear to begin with. 

Lastly, I realize so many of you have used much of the old school gear and pres for a long time in the past. I'd bet most of you have made the tradeoff to all-in-one decks for convenience now that they are built with fairly quality preamps.  But it is still likely for convenience, not because they sound "better".  But hey...nothing wrong with that, heck, I have an F3 for my lazy days. 

[EmRR]

It's a bigger box of crayons.  Sometimes you want, sometimes you don't need. 

[admkrk]

The warm mod on my UA-5 made the KM140s sound a bit darker than they should have been. The built in Zoom preamps correct much of that. My C414s would have fared better, but they are brighter to begin with. I would not trade my F6 for my D8 + UA5, regardless of one sounding better, and I would give the nod to the F6 anyway.

Bottom line, No preamp will make your mics sound better, although the opposite is true.

[Melanie]

We use the shoeps preamp with the 4v's even though I can power them with the Tascam models (DR100mk3, DR40, X8) I own. I only use those when stealthing where the preamp is impractical. Bob

[Flynn]

I love the flavors that pre's can bring to a recording. Running straight into the mix pre can sound a bit sterile for my taste. I tend to use the Sonosax SX-M2D2 or my Soyuz Launcher Deluxe with its saturation mode. I enjoy syrup on my pancakes.

[grawk]

I realize that technically 25 year old preamps are "vintage", but it offends me to see it said.  Those are still mostly IC based, and not really what most people think of when they think "vintage".  That'd be the neve channel strips and the like.

Also, I really liked the sound of my old Schoeps midside -> VMS02iB -> AD500e tapes, but IMHO that combination isn't better than mics -> m2d2 -> phone

[rocksuitcase]

At least ten years ago kindms and I came to a conclusion that pre-amps are "worth the money" to get good ones. Decks are basically bit buckets these days, and while the mix-pre series' pre-amps are widely considered excellent, I chose not to buy one and got two used Tascam Dr-680's. better use of my money since I had access to one V2 and kindms has sort of perm loaned me his V2. I use them both regularly for open taping. Recently I picked up a DPA MMA6000 which is a great match for the 4060's.

ON the other side of this convo, I worked for a guy in the early 1980's who built ALL of his pre-amps and consoles with said pre-amps. He was a Burr-Brown and Allen and Heath guy. His shit sounded AMAZING. But then again, he mentored with the FM production folks who designed one of the first analog delays in conjunction with Dan Healy for GD summer tour 1976. h/t to Mark Fitzgerald and Dean Languell.

[jbell]

The MMA 6000 is fantastic with the 4011, 4015, & 4018 caps as well!  Just need a set of mmp gr cables. 

At least ten years ago kindms and I came to a conclusion that pre-amps are "worth the money" to get good ones. Decks are basically bit buckets these days, and while the mix-pre series' pre-amps are widely considered excellent, I chose not to buy one and got two used Tascam Dr-680's. better use of my money since I had access to one V2 and kindms has sort of perm loaned me his V2. I use them both regularly for open taping. Recently I picked up a DPA MMA6000 which is a great match for the 4060's.

ON the other side of this convo, I worked for a guy on the early 1980's who but ALL of his pre-amps and consoles with said pre-amps. He was a Burr-Brown and Allen and Heath guy. His shit sounded AMAZING. But then again, he mentored with the FM production folks who designed one of the first analog delays in conjunction with Dan Healy for GD summer tour 1976. h/t to Mark Fitzgerald and Dean Languell.

[rocksuitcase]

^^^^ great info. kindms and I had a lengthy convo about the possibilities.
Thanks   +T

[DSatz]

The point of view put forward by the writer of this book, and its claim to universal truth, is a 1970s perspective, and very pretentious. It certainly doesn't represent present-day reality. The great majority of outboard preamps of the past ~40 years don't have "higher highs and lower lows" than the great majority of built-in preamps in recorders and mixers designed during that same period of time. Does anyone here have a recorder with less than ruler-flat response as measured through its mike inputs? I didn't think so.

Audio transformers aren't even used in the majority of preamps (of either kind) designed in the past ~40 years. Of those preamp circuits that do use them, many have no particular audible effect on sound quality when properly driven and loaded. Others do--but that's usually because they're being marketed to users who want and expect the preamp to be a sound-altering device, like a kind of fixed-effect processor in addition to providing gain. Some of those people especially like to push at the boundaries of the preamps' overload behavior, and dismiss as "sterile" any preamp that doesn't generate audibly interesting forms of distortion when that is done.

You can choose either way; that choice has existed for decades now. You can get transformer-equipped preamps that are audibly transparent (see for example John Hardy's); you can get transformerless preamps that color the sound (often designed to imitate old console preamps, even though those are supposedly the villains of the story); you can get preamps that have gradually increasing distortion as their limits are pushed, or those that don't; whatever. It's been a buyer's market for a long time already. You can stock an entire studio with equipment tailored to support your own belief system, whatever it may be.

The author as quoted sounds as if he hasn't let any new information reach his awareness for a very long time. It's an accurate recreation of the way a lot of older people used to think, but that's more a matter of social psychology (or gerontology) than of audio. I'm only surprised that he doesn't talk about tubes in addition to transformers; many old-timers used to believe that there was some magical synergy between those two ingredients.

[BlueSky71]

Thanks for the perspective Dsatz. Yes coloration, guess I like transparency myself. I have owned Zoom F series and Sound Devices as well, both 32 bit. I never thought I preferred the sound of either of them, but am always happy with the results.

[grawk]

For how long I’ve been taping, I know so little. I’m about as light hearted hobby as it comes.

Is the year 2000 vintage? Whatever sound era that was with amps / ad converters, that’s constantly been the one I’m searching for. I couldn’t afford it when I started taping in 2001, but I think I’m there (at least to my ears).

Some people search for the most transparent set up…..and there is me with my DPAs, a V2 and a mini-me. That’ll tell you exactly what I like. And to me at least, the only way to get that sound is with the tools. So when you see me pull out my micro screwdriver for the mini me, don’t jeer. Just a subtle nod to the era past. lol.

Dpa and apogee are a very transparent combination.

[goodcooker]

The statement from the book is from a recording studio perspective but it closely mirrors what tapers have been doing and the state of portable recorders over the years. 20 years ago not many people who were "serious" about getting good (open) tapes would rely on the built in preamps in the portable recorders of the day. They were lackluster if usable at all. So everyone went with Grace, Sound Devices and modified cheaper units like the Edirol UA5 preamp and AD converter or bespoke custom preamps like the early "Jensen with a battery" Oade bricks.

Same thing with studio gear. In the beginning recording consoles were expensive custom builds with (usually) discrete transistor circuitry. Then along came integrated circuits meaning they could be mass produced more effectively and cheaply so that more people could afford a console - you just order it, plug it in and Bob's your uncle - but they became a little less unique and somewhat flavorless. If you wanted the mojo you had to spring for a Neve, API, SSL or Harrison console OR a couple of the channel strips that had been removed from a console and racked for outboard use OR mission specific outboard preamps. Every studio has a rack or two of preamps, compressors, equalizers and often AD converters, a master clock, etc.

Another member here mentioned people wanting "color". That's what 99% of studio operators want. Transparency is for the AD/DA stage. Mic and preamp choices are made for their color. Location/film/classical recordists (and often tapers) are the only ones after transparency.

I have shifted most of my gear and gone on temporary hiatus but I still have 2 Aerco preamps. They have a sound that tempts me to use a bunch of audiophile descriptive terms but I won't. I don't know enough about circuits to explain why it produces a sound I tend to like so much (it's likely a combination of the Jensen transformer, low noise circuit and high slew rate opamp) but it does a couple of things very right. RIP Jerry. I have a couple of recorders with very adequate preamps that have fine specs but if I want the tracks to stand out I'll use the mission specific preamp.