#1
|
|||
|
|||
preamp advice
Hey guys, first post here.
So I have a Shure Sm81 that I like, and a Tascam US322 or 332 maybe, can't remember... anyway, it does the job well enough, but I'd like a good tube preamp to roll off some of the high "percussive" qualities and add some more warmth and goodness to the midrange--something that gets my SM81 more into Neumann KM184 territory; 1 or 2 channels is all I need. Suggestions? Was looking at the Universal Audio Solo 610 but I'm not sure it has enough features... a tone knob or something would be cool. Keep it around $600 used. Thanks |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Couple of thoughts. First I have not used either mic so hopefully someone who has actually used both can comment. Because audio is always a sum of the parts it is not always easy to determine if improvement in one component will in fact yield the desired results.
Subjective terms are often hard to communicate adequately. (more later ) You have posted your $600 budget which is a good start but perhaps a bit more info about your recording chain would help. Tascam US322 > into what? What DAW, what operating system Mac ,Windows. what monitoring ? And perhaps the most important given your description of desired sound improvement Is your room or space treated in any fashion? if not this may be a place to spend money to start with, because your subjective descriptive terms "add some more warmth and goodness to the midrange-" is definitely a function of cutting down unwanted room reflections. The 322 is your current interface and will keep it and use it for your interface ? Looking strictly fro a mic pre only? Or are you looking for a combo mic pre and interface unit to replace it ? As for subjective terms, I honestly have no clue what " roll off some of the high "percussive" qualities " means. A percussive quality is usually referring to transient strike I understand wanting to roll of the high end but that would more likely be a function of EQ And as I said have not used either mic but from what I have read the 184 if any different may actually be a bit more hyped in the high end than the 81 ? Have you tried a 184 into your Tascam and thus know from first hand experience it is a more desirable sound to you ?
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1 Last edited by KevWind; 03-29-2015 at 06:55 AM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mac, Cubase LE. No space treatment, but all I'm recording is an unamplified Stauffer style classical guitar--they're not loud.
Looking for mic pre only by "percussive qualities" I mean like the click of nails/picks/whatever... I absolutely hate acoustic recordings where you can hear a bunch of pick/nail clicks haven't tried the 184 but all the comparison clips i've heard sound like it has a little less high end and a much more complex midrange I've been doing what I can with EQ but as it stands my options for highs are either too rolled off or too present and sterile, mids are also a bit sterile. I know the guitar itself is not the culprit because I'm absolutely 100% in love with the way it sounds (in person) and wouldn't change a thing |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In my experience, the preamp is negligible when it comes to finger squeaks, pick noises, etc. The mic can have more to do with that but is a distant second to mic placement and playing technique.
Jim McCarthy |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As far as EQ yes using it to roll off is probably not a good solution. Although for something like a specific click sometimes can be lessened by a reduction with a very narrow Q right at the most offensive part of click frequency. Cubase should have an adjustable multi band EQ with adjustable Q ( frequency band width) if not that would a plugin to get. If Cubase LE does have such and EQ and has plugin automation then you can automate it to be bypassed every where in the track until right at the click/s sound. Unsure about term "too present" In my terminology if your talking about an unprocessed signal it is hard to imagine the sound can be "too present". Presence is necessary for a feeling of depth and clarity. Again sterile is one of those subjective terms if your referring a completely dry recording, then the sterile can be addressed with either reverb or delay. If by sterile you mean "thin" which usually actually means lacking clarity presence and depth, that can involve a number of things but at the very top of that list is unwanted room reflections which create subtle distortions. That are not discernible as reflections, but do in fact rob depth, and dynamic clarity. And it does not matter how loud the guitar is, in fact the less loud the guitar the more gain you must apply to get same signal in db's, which means you are boosting any room anomalies right along with the guitar and actually increasing the noise to signal ratio or conversely decreasing the signal to noise particularly in the mid's and mid high's. Also again with the caveat I have not used either the 81 or the 184 mic, Neumann does state on their web sight that their 8 series 184/183 mics have a slight rise starting at 9k . That said if your still looking for pre amp I would think you would be looking at a minimum of 60 db's of good clean gain (the higher signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio) the better.
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1 Last edited by KevWind; 03-28-2015 at 01:39 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
It sounds like you may be misunderstanding the purpose of acoustic treatment. Its not about "sound proofing", its about taming the resonances and reflections of your room thst can wreak havoc on your recordings. Its possibly the biggest single reason home recordings dont match the quality of pro studios. It matters far more than the gear. Our ears are good at filtering out and ignoring differences in the sound that a room imposes on the sound, mics are not. Do a search on acoustic treatment and recording and you should find lots of info.
__________________
Music: Spotify, Bandcamp Videos: You Tube Channel Books: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), Christmas Carols for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), A DADGAD Christmas, Alternate Tunings book Online Course: Alternate Tunings for Fingerstyle Guitar |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Don't Buy ANY Gear Until You Treat Your Space
Aloha DMFP,
I agree with those who confirm that providing adequate Room Treatment is actually more important than the gear - especially as you first get into home recording. Do NOT buy any new gear until you figure out how you'll do that. It's a waste of money. Even just recording a single classical guitar, the idea is to control early reflections & be able to mitigate problem frequencies (ID them using a Radio Shack SP meter) in your specific space. It will separate your frequency spectrum & allow the complex overtones of an acoustic guitar to be clearly heard - & not morph into a mid-rangey, lack of clarity. You may not even need to invest in a new preamp/mic combo to get the sound you're after with Room Treatment. (BTW, IMO, that UA Solo 610 preamp was not my favorite mic pre - more than a little coloration with many types of mic's when I auditioned it. And unfortunately, most of the better tube pre's are northward of $2K (& worth the jump to my ears). Treat first my friend. It will surprise ya. You can't maximize ANY gear without treatment. No upgrade will help if you don't have it. So make some portable broadband absorbers first - then later, go after a better signal chain that includes better preamps & mic's (if you need them that is). It will save you time & money if you do it now. DIY Room Treatment needn't be costly or permanent. Portable is fine. I made 22 portable broadband absorbers & it's worked well in every space I've rented since I made them. Making them saved me thousands. But all you need is 2-9 of those gobo's for tracking in just about any space. The idea is a little like building a little room of absorbers within your space to play/track. Here's Fran Guidry's "how to" video & a couple others that will help you understand the importance of Room Treatment in creating consistent recordings: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...-on-the-cheap/ http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2011/...adband-panels/ http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html We have had plenty of "Treatment" discussions at this site. Use the Search function & check them out as well. For decades, I tried to record with little or no room treatment, with predictably inconsistent results. It made a huge difference when I finally committed to it. Don't make the mistake I did in saving room treatment for last. Good Luck, DMFP! alohachris Last edited by alohachris; 03-29-2015 at 08:17 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I LOVE my solo 610 for home and use the 2-610 at the studio. If has a really clear sound that's great for acoustics. Less mids than say a neve type pre and that tube goodness. The tube adds a subtle effect (not as dramatic as a tube guitar amp vs. solid state) but you'll find that after listening a while you have less or no ear fatigue. |