Preamp seems useless..

[ap1]

I like to think I have fairly decent ears, after some 25-odd years of playing, singing, ear-training, etc. And yet, I can't seem to detect a damn bit of difference in sound when having a preamp between the source and the interface; it sounds exactly the same just plugging directly into the interface - a simple M-Audio FW 410. And the levels are fine going straight in, without a pre. Granted, the preamps I've tried are low-end: Samson C-valve, and a Symetrix SX 202. The latter is so simple, each channel just has a gain and a pad. The former allows control for input and output gain, along with tube saturation and some simple eq and a limiter.

I thought that a preamp was, if not a necessary, than an integral and beneficial part of the chain. I'd think I'd be able to detect SOME difference, but I can't, which makes me wonder: what on earth do I need a preamp for, if the level going into the interface is sufficient without one, and there's no audible benefit?

[kludge]

Couple of things... first, can your monitoring/playback pick it up?

Second, and this was a revelation for me... things that don't sound noticably different when you're soloing a track can sound VERY different in the context of a mix. For example, I own two Oktava 219 mics. One was modded by Oktavamods. Record an acoustic guitar with both of them and listen side by side, you'll barely hear a difference. But put that guitar in the context of drums, bass, electric guitars, vocals, etc, and the modded one just JUMPS. It's significantly clearer in the mix context.

Preamps are a similar issue. You may not hear much of a difference between cheap and expensive UNTIL you start mixing.

[ap1]

Couple of things... first, can your monitoring/playback pick it up?


No, I don't hear any difference, whether I'm just testing, or in monitoring or playback...

[testing1two]

If you're plugging a line level source into a mic pre, you're really not using the mic pre very much and thus, little to no coloration (try experimenting with DI boxes, especially tube ones for this application). If you were plugging a microphone into the pre, then the preamp is a necessity in order to achieve the proper signal levels and the coloration is more apparent. Also, the accuracy of your monitoring environment plays a big part in being able to detect the nuances of mics, preamps, etc. It's not overstated like the 'loudness' button on your stereo.

[ap1]

If you were plugging a microphone into the pre, then the preamp is a necessity in order to achieve the proper signal levels and the coloration is more apparent.

But part of my confusion is that there doesn't seem to be any problem achieving the proper signal level by plugging my mic directly into the interface. I take it there's *some* preamplification circuit in the interface itself, but I've always been under the impression that an outboard pre was necessary for some other reason, whether technical (signal boost) or aesthetic (coloration, warmth, what-have-you).

And again, I perceive no significant coloration when I stick the pre in front of the interface. I don't get it...

[testing1two]

Just to be clear, when using the outboard pre you should:
a. switch your audio interface to line level using the line/mic switch on the front of your FW410 and
b. use the 1/4" jacks on the back of the interface

If you use the jacks on the front, the M-Audio's mic pre is always in the circuit.

[cochese]

I don't think you are going to hear much of a difference comparing low end preamps to other low end preamps. I use a Great River (Neve based) micpre which is about $1100 for one channel. When I first got it I didn't think it made a big difference. I then took it to a friends studio. He has better gear. Better monitors, a Neumann, a nice Focusrite Red micpre. When I heard it at his studio that's when I first heard the difference. You also didn't mention the type of microphones you are using. The mic preamp is part of a signal chain. Good mics, good mic pre, good compressor, good convertors and good monitors all will make the difference. If you have all those other components happening it will be much easier to hear the difference.

[ap1]

Just to be clear, when using the outboard pre you should:
a. switch your audio interface to line level using the line/mic switch on the front of your FW410 and
b. use the 1/4" jacks on the back of the interface

If you use the jacks on the front, the M-Audio's mic pre is always in the circuit.


Well, this could explain it - I've been coming out of the pre and going in to the M-Audio's front jacks, at mic level.

[ap1]

I don't think you are going to hear much of a difference comparing low end preamps to other low end preamps.

You also didn't mention the type of microphones you are using.


The main issue was not being able to distinguish the difference between going straight into the interface w/out a pre and using a pre. But I think testing1two may have cleared this up.


Rode NT-2A, for the most part; occassionally an AT3034. Not tops, but fairly decent mics.

[GP_Hawk]

B I take it there's *some* preamplification circuit in the interface itself, but I've always been under the impression that an outboard pre was necessary for some other reason, whether technical (signal boost) or aesthetic (coloration, warmth, what-have-you).
.

You do know that Channels 1 and 2 on the FW410 ARE mic pre's with gain and 48v switch? Although not great ones.....

[ap1]

You do know that Channels 1 and 2 on the FW410 ARE mic pre's with gain and 48v switch? Although not great ones.....


I do - still, I was under the impression (for what reason, I'm not exactly sure now) that an outboard pre - even a low-end unit like the BlueTube or the C-valve - would make a significant difference when compared with the M-Audio.

[cochese]

I think the other thing to keep in mind is what is it you are hoping to gain by using a different micpre. Are you trying to get more clarity, a fatter sound, more headroom etc. Also recording a couple of tracks with a really good preamp may not make a huge difference. Record 12-20 tracks with various microphones on a project and you will probably hear a much bigger difference.

If you go to most recording forums the general consensus is that as long as your preamp is not horrible (no headroom and really noisy) you will hear a much bigger difference with a better microphone versus the better preamp. Your results may vary.

[thesedaze]

A preamp is a source of gain....surely certain preamp components add color to taste, but generally speaking, it's nothing more than a source of gain. You should be plugging in an external preamp into the line in source, not into another preamp, unless you want extra gain, but the impedance is off...

[Jet Age Eric]

I totally agree until you get to the part about the RNP. I think the RNC is an AMAZING compressor, but I wouldn't recommend the RNP to people who are spending money to get things to sound better. The RNP is VERY hairy, kinda muddy, and delivers nothing like a really good pre (API, NEve/Portico, Great River, John Hardy, etc.).

I don't mean to be cranky or dismissive, but $500 is a lot of money for a pre that simply isn't very accurate. Save a few hundred dollars more and get a Sytek for $890. Still not quite A-list, but damn good (and four channels). If you wanna get REALLY serious and wanna keep the price down, get a John Hardy M-1 frame and two channels with no options (no meters--just use your ears; no output trannys--John doesn't think you need 'em) for ! $1100. Those are top notch pres that sound great on everything. The API a2d offers colored but excellent pres AND a fantastic a/d converter for ~ $1500.

These things aren't cheap, but does it make more sense to spend $500 (also not cheap) for a piece of gear that simply isn't very good? -E

If it's a low end preamp you're using, then you shouldn't expect any improvements at all. The ones inside many of the lower end interfaces you'll find today are just as good, maybe better than any of those, so it's a complete waste of money.

It's not until you start moving up into things like the FMR RNP that you really start noticing significant improvements. Look into that one...seriously. They're not nearly as expensive as some of the higher end preamps, but they deliver on very near the same level as they do.

http://www.fmraudio.com/RNP8380.htm

[zenfreud]

I do - still, I was under the impression (for what reason, I'm not exactly sure now) that an outboard pre - even a low-end unit like the BlueTube or the C-valve - would make a significant difference when compared with the M-Audio.

That's an impression that many gear manufacturers and retailers exploit. I don't think you'll really gain anything worthwhile (over what's built into your interface) with mic preamps at that price level. Generally any time a tube plays a big part in the name of a mic pre or comp, run the other way, it's being used as a selling gimmick. Good tube mic preamps usually cost a minimum of $1k per channel. And surprisingly some of the fattest preamps you'll ever hear are solid-state, not tube.

[testing1two]

Not to completely sidetrack this thread, but the home studio revolution has caused manufacturers to create lines of products that are more about features than quality of sound/design. When you can buy an entire channel strip with a mic pre, parametric eq, and compression for $500, there's going to be sonic consequences. But like the mp3, if the masses can't tell the difference...

My point is this: channel strips are nifty, but not if they use a mic pre that's no better than what's built into a typical interface or mackie console. If you want a really good mic pre, then look at dedicated mic pres. If you need a compressor, look at dedicated compressors and so on. Every now and then, a combo will present itself that deserves your attention (like the UA 6176 or the Avalon 737 among others), but for the most part, the standalone pres are where its at IMHO.

[ap1]

Got it all squared away; I was foolishly unaware that the outboard pre had to go into the line ins on the interface, and not the mic/inst ins. I've gotten some gain and clarity out of it, which is what I'd been seeking for.

Thanks for the tips, all...

[GuitarsFromMars]

Couple of things... first, can your monitoring/playback pick it up?

Second, and this was a revelation for me... things that don't sound noticably different when you're soloing a track can sound VERY different in the context of a mix. For example, I own two Oktava 219 mics. One was modded by Oktavamods. Record an acoustic guitar with both of them and listen side by side, you'll barely hear a difference. But put that guitar in the context of drums, bass, electric guitars, vocals, etc, and the modded one just JUMPS. It's significantly clearer in the mix context.

Preamps are a similar issue. You may not hear much of a difference between cheap and expensive UNTIL you start mixing.

sorry to pull the thread off the tracks,but could you say a little more about oktavamods-I have been thinking about using them for a 219 that's unhealthy sounding...thanks.

[Figher53]

No, I don't hear any difference, whether I'm just testing, or in monitoring or playback...

That's not what he's asking. He's asking if your speakers and your monitoring environment (your room) are of decent quality to be able to hear the different nuances. If you're playing the tracks back through a $99 set of monitors in a bathroom (I'm exaggerating here) you're not going to be able to hear a difference. Whereas through a high quality set of monitors in a room built from the ground up to be a listening environment, you'll be shocked at the level of detail you can hear.

[thesedaze]

Got it all squared away; I was foolishly unaware that the outboard pre had to go into the line ins on the interface, and not the mic/inst ins. I've gotten some gain and clarity out of it, which is what I'd been seeking for.

Thanks for the tips, all...

Awesome! Glad it all worked out...very common mistake.