Post your recording acoustic setup

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

I would love love love for someone to post a pair of same source level matched clips demonstrating an audible difference between two high quality preamps.
Fran

Thanks for this, Fran.
Back some years ago I bought Lynn Huston's CD which level matched, I don't know, maybe 20 mostly high end mic pres but some inexpensive ones too - like a Mackie in a mixer.

Although I could hear an extremely slight difference between the high and low priced pres the differences were, IMO, irrelevant compared to everything else that goes in to a recording - guitar strings, for example.

Jim McCarthy

[flagstaffcharli]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

I would love love love for someone to post a pair of same source level matched clips demonstrating an audible difference between two high quality preamps.

When I did a comparo like this between my M-Audio DMP3 and John Hardy M-1 I could not tell them apart. I sold the Hardy.

Fran

Fran,

Is it possible that in the days of audio tape the difference between preamps was more apparent than it is now where most folks go straight to digital? It seems like there isn't any urgency to record "hot" with digital, but that you might have wanted to record a hotter signal to tape to get saturation or control noise? I'm asking, not putting forward an argument. The only tape recording I've done by myself was when I was a kid on a Tascam 4-track cassette.

I never did an A/B with my Hardy M-1 unit, and I'm not that disciplined or willing to put in the time to do a test. I'd be happy to check out someone else's test, but I'm kind of a lazy bones about that kind of thing. Always have been… I'd rather play guitar or write a song.

I do know the Hardy and Duet 2 both have more clean gain than the preamps that were part of interfaces and DAWs I owned, and I think they both have more clean gain than the Great River I had for a spell. I seem to remember the FMR Audio RNP's had a lot of gain, but that they introduced some noise up at the top of that gain. I only know this because of things I tried to do (fooling around with ambient or distant mic placement, or recording that SM7B mic) where those interfaces were a fail, but where switching to the Duet or Hardy made it work.

That said, I was in a studio Monday recording to tape. The drum tracks sounded fabulous (as I think I mentioned already) while being run through a fairly inexpensive mixing console — no high end preamps at all.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by runamuck

Thanks for this, Fran.
Back some years ago I bought Lynn Huston's CD which level matched, I don't know, maybe 20 mostly high end mic pres but some inexpensive ones too - like a Mackie in a mixer.

Although I could hear an extremely slight difference between the high and low priced pres the differences were, IMO, irrelevant compared to everything else that goes in to a recording - guitar strings, for example.

Jim McCarthy

That CD was level matched but not same source. So I'd ask myself if it were more likely that two preamps differ or two passes at a vocal were different.

And as you say, if the differences were in the hardware, would those differences change the emotional impact of the recording?

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by flagstaffcharli

Fran,

Is it possible that in the days of audio tape the difference between preamps was more apparent than it is now where most folks go straight to digital?

Chuck, the ironic thing is that back in tape days preamps were whatever was built-in to the console. Whole albums were done with those preamps and no one considered using preamps for "color."

It seems like there isn't any urgency to record "hot" with digital, but that you might have wanted to record a hotter signal to tape to get saturation or control noise? I'm asking, not putting forward an argument. The only tape recording I've done by myself was when I was a kid on a Tascam 4-track cassette.

Once condenser mics were widely available the issue of getting a hot signal was solved for anyone using a pro level console.

...
I do know the Hardy and Duet 2 both have more clean gain than the preamps that were part of interfaces and DAWs I owned, and I think they both have more clean gain than the Great River I had for a spell. I seem to remember the FMR Audio RNP's had a lot of gain, but that they introduced some noise up at the top of that gain. I only know this because of things I tried to do (fooling around with ambient or distant mic placement, or recording that SM7B mic) where those interfaces were a fail, but where switching to the Duet or Hardy made it work.

I've used a couple of audio interfaces that were lacking in clean gain, especially if used with a mic like the SM7B which trades sensitivity for linear frequency response, but that's an easy problem to solve ... don't try to record a quiet instrument with a low output mic (grin).

That said, I was in a studio Monday recording to tape. The drum tracks sounded fabulous (as I think I mentioned already) while being run through a fairly inexpensive mixing console — no high end preamps at all.

Sounds like a great learning experience as well as big fun.

Fran

[alohachris]

Aloha Friends,

Some would have us believe that there are no significant audible differences among gear (especially better gear) to be heard & would provide online clips here to back that (fallacy, IMO) up. It sometimes leads people who hear those clips to conclude that they can build a high quality recording signal chain on the cheap, which they certainly can, with predictable inconsistent results. Of course, much depends on individual recording goals, right?

I would say that the sonic differences between say, two different upscale preamps ARE very subtle & certainly cannot be heard in any online clips provided here, especially compressed MP3 files. Even online WAV file clips don't let you hear much difference between say, an AT 2020 & a Microtech Gefell M300 mic. Recent threads "proved" that with several online clips. However, listen to those same two mic's live on great studio monitors & the differences (especially combined with great preamps) are readily apparent.

Though aging fast, I have always been able to hear at least some of those subtle differences (if they are indeed present) when comparing quality pieces of similar gear in a studio setting, playing music live through mic's in my studio & then listening through some great monitors. For me, that was always the best place to make decisions on whether gear works for my signal chain, instruments, voice, musical styles or not. It's also the only way to actually feel things like build-quality, off-axis response, how it works, where it sits & behaves in a mix, how it takes EQ, etc. That's why I spent so much time & money on bringing gear out here to the Islands to audition - Because Online clips do NOT provide any nuances or comparative evidence upon which to base those purchasing decisions, IMO.

After so many shoot-outs comparing gear on my home system, I came to believe that if you put high-end mic & preamp combo's through the same signal chain of equal quality & listen carefully through monitors while someone plays or sings, the subtle differences & contributions of say, a high-end tube preamp (discussed earlier here) can be heard when using it with combo's of great mic's. How much those subtleties play into our individual choice to buy or not - the value we place on gear - is up to each of us individually.

Of course, to follow the questioning of recent posts, could it also be true that, to varying degrees, those of us who may have been able to hear more of those subtle difference when comparing gear back in the analog days, may not be able to hear the full frequency spectrum & subtle nuances we once could? I know I can't.

A Hui Hou!
alohachris

[Doug Young]

So Chris, let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that there are important audible differences in gear that can be heard while you're playing live (thru headphones, I guess?) in the studio, but that those differences disappear as soon as you hit record and play back? Or do they only disappear when you give a completed recording to someone else?

I think this may indicate some problem somewhere in your process or signal chain - when I play back recordings, I hear exactly what I heard while recording. But regardless, let's just accept that what you're describing is true, and something everyone will encounter. (It is of course true that what I hear over my studio monitors will almost certainly not sound the same when you play back my CD in your car, or whatever, so perhaps that's what you're describing?)

In that case, it would seem important to point that out when making gear recommendations. If someone wants to hear themselves live in the studio, then for a fleeting moment while actually recording, they will hear differences in gear that make the price of "better" gear worthwhile. However, if their goal is to record something that they can playback, release a CD, share online, etc, then they won't be able to hear differences in gear, so they should save their money. Right?

I'm not sure I like the idea of giving someone a CD and saying "this sounds pretty so-so, but man, you should have heard the sound live while I was recording". Kind of defeats the point of recording. But if that's the way it is, at least we can make decisions on gear based on how we intended to use it: for listening to ourselves live in the studio, or making recordings for ourselves and others to hear.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Aloha Friends,

Some would have us believe that there are no significant audible differences among gear (especially better gear) to be heard & would provide online clips here to back that (fallacy, IMO) up.

I would suggest that if the clips provide audible evidence of that contention then there is no fallacy.

It sometimes leads people who hear those clips to conclude that they can build a high quality recording signal chain on the cheap, which they certainly can, with predictable inconsistent results. Of course, much depends on individual recording goals, right?

In what predictable way will inconsistency ensue?? And, by the way, what are _your_ recording goals, Chris? They certainly don't seem to be related to sharing your recordings with anyone any time.

I would say that the sonic differences between say, two different upscale preamps ARE very subtle & certainly cannot be heard in any online clips provided here, especially compressed MP3 files. Even online WAV file clips don't let you hear much difference between say, an AT 2020 & a Microtech Gefell M300 mic. Recent threads "proved" that with several online clips. However, listen to those same two mic's live on great studio monitors & the differences (especially combined with great preamps) are readily apparent.

Please explain how WAV files distributed online are in any way different than WAV files distributed on CD or stored on a hard drive ... please! I listen to those files on the same interface and monitors I use to record and the bits are the same, so ... ???

Though aging fast, I have always been able to hear at least some of those subtle differences (if they are indeed present) when comparing quality pieces of similar gear in a studio setting, playing music live through mic's in my studio & then listening through some great monitors. For me, that was always the best place to make decisions on whether gear works for my signal chain, instruments, voice, musical styles or not.

So you're saying that if you record, then listen in the studio, then email those files to yourself and listen to them in the same studio, the quality will be lost?

It's also the only way to actually feel things like build-quality, off-axis response,
how it works, where it sits & behaves in a mix, how it takes EQ, etc. That's why I spent so much time & money on bringing gear out here to the Islands to audition - Because Online clips do NOT provide any nuances or comparative evidence upon which to base those purchasing decisions, IMO.

I don't think anyone has suggested that build quality does not differ at different price points, but for any audibly evident aspect of a piece of gear, if that quality does not make itself evident in a recording, what's the point???

After so many shoot-outs comparing gear on my home system, I came to believe that if you put high-end mic & preamp combo's through the same signal chain of equal quality & listen carefully through monitors while someone plays or sings, the subtle differences & contributions of say, a high-end tube preamp (discussed earlier here) can be heard when using it with combo's of great mic's. How much those subtleties play into our individual choice to buy or not - the value we place on gear - is up to each of us individually.

But Chris, we already know that you believe this. The point is whether or not you can demonstrate this objectively. Like with two clips of the same source recorded at the same time with careful level matching. And even more importantly to me, can you demonstrate that spending 10 times more on a piece of gear buys a more emotionally compelling recording.

Of course, to follow the questioning of recent posts, could it also be true that, to varying degrees, those of us who may have been able to hear more of those subtle difference when comparing gear back in the analog days, may not be able to hear the full frequency spectrum & subtle nuances we once could? I know I can't.

A Hui Hou!
alohachris

So now I'm even more confused. Can you hear the difference between a DMP3 and a Pendulum MDP-1 or not?

Fran

[rick-slo]

Playing music live through gear while listening (it would have to be headphones) and you are hearing a combination of the music direct from the instruments and thru the headphones.

If you are the one playing then you are going thru different mental (and physical) processes compared to listening back later.

Any speaker listening back and you are then adding a new set of room acoustics to the experience.

If you are listening back live (through headphones) inside your DAW, but listening back outside your DAW, then the output gear will be different.

Recorded music (and my guitars live) sound different to me from day to day in part simply because of what is going on inside my head at the moment.

[alohachris]

Aloha Doug,

You know that the picture you paint is not what I wrote. I never wrote "important differences" - that's your distortion. I was talking about subtleties & how best to hear & feel them.

All I am cautioning against is players using compressed online clips as a criteria for judging whether or not they should buy gear at any level. Because I never hear much of any differences on those clips - subtle or "important" that I can here live on a studio signal chain.

I did not say, "Don't share clips here." If I could, I would & I'd encourage others to do so - much to my benefit with the help that you & others can provide in tweaking them.

But there are many other roads to comparing gear & making those buying decisions. None of them (for me) include online clips.

Different approaches make the world go round. We all share this love for acoustic music. It's not a "Gotcha" forum, right?

alohachris

[sdelsolray]

If I can't hear a difference it doesn't matter. If I can hear a difference it matters, except when it doesn't.

Any testing which uses listeners' ears is not objective. Ears (i.e., hearing acuity) vary from person to person. Some are well trained, some are not. Some are damaged, some are not. Some are young and some are old.

I did many null tests in years past comparing mics, preamp, converters, etc. Null testing is objective. The cool thing about null testing is that it isolates the difference, if any, between two sound files. They don't require listening, but they do identify differences between two identical recordings with a single alternative (e.g., same room, same placement, same instrument, same performance, same mic, two different preamps, same converters, same level, etc.). I never had two files completely null. Never ever. Accordingly, there were objective differences in all the tests I did, and I suspect there would be differences if I tested other gear.

Whether I can hear those differences, and whether they matter, are subjective as to me, with my ears and personal preferences.

Once the several items in a recoding begin to vary, the differences often becomes larger. For example, if I use different mic and a different preamp, it is likely that the differences will be greater than if only one of those items were different. I remember starting a thread several years in this sub forum with three sample stereo recordings. Everything was the same same except for the microphones and preamps, which were different for each of the three recordings. The differences among the recordings were quite obvious, even to an untrained ear.

[flagstaffcharli]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Chuck, the ironic thing is that back in tape days preamps were whatever was built-in to the console. Whole albums were done with those preamps and no one considered using preamps for "color."



Once condenser mics were widely available the issue of getting a hot signal was solved for anyone using a pro level console.



I've used a couple of audio interfaces that were lacking in clean gain, especially if used with a mic like the SM7B which trades sensitivity for linear frequency response, but that's an easy problem to solve ... don't try to record a quiet instrument with a low output mic (grin).



Sounds like a great learning experience as well as big fun.

Fran

Thanks!

My Hardy M-1 pair has served me well. I can say that this is great sounding gear that has never caused any difficulty. But they are for sale. I'm simplifying my recording life down to one Duet 2 that fits into my laptop, iPad, and even my phone. I still suspect for some sources the Hardy pres are better, but I'm just a guy with a guitar recording with two fairly close mics. In my case. I doubt there is any meaningful difference.

Of course, if you buy mine off the classifieds, I am sure they will be the silver bullet in your signal chain.

Chris, if you have a digital recording, it really is super easy to upload an uncompressed file somewhere for folks to download. Compared to recording anything, it's super easy. Even I can do it, and I'm someone who doesn't always play well with technology.

Fooling around with gear is sort of a normal part of this whole process. Keep it fun!

[Wengr]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

I did many null tests in years past comparing mics, preamp, converters, etc. Null testing is objective. The cool thing about null testing is that it isolates the difference, if any, between two sound files. They don't require listening, but they do identify differences between two identical recordings with a single alternative (e.g., same room, same placement, same instrument, same performance, same mic, two different preamps, same converters, same level, etc.). I never had two files completely null. Never ever. Accordingly, there were objective differences in all the tests I did, and I suspect there would be differences if I tested other gear.

Whether I can hear those differences, and whether they matter, are subjective as to me, with my ears and personal preferences.

Yep there it is. Different gear is not likely to null. I doubt many people would argue this - so when someone cannot hear the difference between two different pieces of gear, I suggest they consider WHY they cannot hear the difference.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by alohachris

You know that the picture you paint is not what I wrote. I never wrote "important differences" - that's your distortion. I was talking about subtleties & how best to hear & feel them.

I did not mean to distort your comment, Chris. Sorry, "subtle" differences. I guess I took it that you meant the differences mattered, which to me would be important.

But basically, I'm just puzzling over the "I can hear it live, but not on a recording" thing. If a difference is audible live, but not audible on a recording, something odd is going on, and/or I have to wonder if it matters. I'm not trying to play "gotcha", I honestly don't get it. If an improvement to recording gear can't be heard on a recording, why do we care?

As far as quality being lost on compressed recordings, I don't generally post low-resolution clips these days. For things I've posted to SoundCloud (which I agree, may not stream the best sound), I usually try to remember to post a downloadable clip, so you can grab the full uncompressed 96K/24bit original recording and check it out. (Posting to SoundCloud is free, and very easy, BTW). So feel free to compare anything I've posted by downloading the original full-resolution recordings and listen to them in your studio where you can listen for subtle differences. I encourage people to remember to check the "downloadable" button on soundcloud so those of us who care can listen at full quality. If something I've posted isn't downloadable, let me know, and I'll fix it.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by Wengr

Yep there it is. Different gear is not likely to null. I doubt many people would argue this - so when someone cannot hear the difference between two different pieces of gear, I suggest they consider WHY they cannot hear the difference.

Well, there's this thing called threshold of audibility, ya see. Do you think you can hear the difference between .0001 THD and .00000001 THD? Between .01 dB at 17khz vs -.01 dB at 17khz? These differences won't null, after all.

Heck, I have yet to find objective evidence that humans can hear the difference between 44.1/16 and "high res" audio at higher sample rates and bit depth. Plenty of anecdote, no evidence.

That's the point of same source level matched clips: do the differences exceed the threshold of audibility? There's no other way to measure this than by collecting a bunch of double blinded comparisons, at least none I know.

Fran

[Wengr]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Well, there's this thing called threshold of audibility, ya see. Do you think you can hear the difference between .0001 THD and .00000001 THD? Between .01 dB at 17khz vs -.01 dB at 17khz? These differences won't null, after all.

Heck, I have yet to find objective evidence that humans can hear the difference between 44.1/16 and "high res" audio at higher sample rates and bit depth. Plenty of anecdote, no evidence.

That's the point of same source level matched clips: do the differences exceed the threshold of audibility? There's no other way to measure this than by collecting a bunch of double blinded comparisons, at least none I know.

Fran

Are you referring to my threshold of audibility, or yours?