STOCK vs TUBE Preamps
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Which sounds better? Stock preamps or tube preamps?
DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO FILES HERE: www.dropbox.co...
🎙Get better recordings by this weekend with your free Recording Cheat Sheet 👉 www.RecordingCh...
*****
CONNECT WITH ME:
Facebook: / joegildermusic
Twitter: / joegildermusic
Home Studio Corner: www.homestudioc...
Music: www.joegildermu...
The thing newbies have to remember is that this is the age of the DAW. Everything sounds great. The differences are subtle. Recording to ADAT in the 90's or 8/16 track tape during the 80's through the equipment back then cost a fortune and didn't yield the results you can get on stock equipment today. Yet, many good recordings were made. Newbies tend to get hung up on equipment adequacy concerns. Don't worry about it. What you have is amazing. Work with it. As time goes on and your sound develops, you will figure out the small subtle things you need to give you the coloration you want.
MASSIVE THANKS JOE !! OMG I can’t believe you did it 😁 highly appreciated 🙏🏼 This is really helpful. The tube sounds better, but the stock ones are also great and I agree they can do the job perfectly. Thanks again my friend.
Joe is awesome that way. He's so good at genuinely wanting to help his customers and seems to truly care about what they want to learn.
Thank you for asking the question!
For me the tube preamps always sound already compressed. The low end is steady and the high end raspiness of the voice is constant. That may be why tube signal is easier to mix.
After downloading the audio files I placed them in parallel and inverted one of the track's phase and got an interesting result. Most of the difference in the high end, as mentioned in the video. After hearing the "difference" I was able to distinguish that subtle detail in the individual recordings. Great stuff!
man thats so smart, it never crossed my mind. Thank you. can that be used in other comparisons
Emanuel Frias ey, that’s clever!
You should maybe do this as a blind test, just denoting them preamp A and B , then later in the video you could reveal what is what. Our brains change how things sound based on our expectations too. Our ears are terrible measuring instruments.
@Wyatt Silva But not all has the power to look away :p :)
I would suggest that, in this example, the effect of confirmation bias is greater than the technical difference. :-)
Let's not over think it - if it's so subtle you need to blind A/B to test the difference, there probably isn't enough difference to be worthwhile, unless you are a pro and can justify the cost for a 0.5% improvement it will bring to your productions. I've got an ADL700 and, to be honest, just use my standard RME preamps most of the time!
@@joelonsdale honestly there is no difference that can justify the price difference. Like with all of these type of comparisons, you cannot ever trust a comparison from someone who owns the expensive gear. They will never be unbiased. These expensive preamps are snake oil and is just a vanity exercise. People just want to justify spending ridiculous amounts for their fix. They are like drug addicts, totally lost their ability to judge the fact that they are Addicts.
A good external preamp is better. Not a big difference……However, over time the small difference of improvement becomes a big difference once you get used to it…….On the other hand, If you’re producing a bunch of mediocre music and all the listeners in the audience are just listening on cheap quality speakers then I would use the cheapest gear and stock preamp.
That was a great thought that you shared about how an amp makes you play differently, or a preamp makes you sing differently. I’ve experienced that, and it does make a difference.
Cool thing about tube pre's is that if you push 'em with a hotter signal, they typically saturate in a pleasing way. Those lovely harmonics! That's when you really hear a bigger difference.
Yeah, for me if you’re not saturating tubes they are just for mah prestige. And at that point everything starts having a difference and it starts to matter which you use, stock preamps will have a harsher sound than tubes, which can still be useful despite what pretentious a-holes will tell you.
@@JGHFunRun Great info and video, but it’s all subjective so why is this a sounds better vs doesn’t sound better? These comparisons are okay but it’s usually the same thing. It’s like guitar pedal shootouts. The Boss DS-1 has been revered as one of the crappiest distortion pedals around yet Kurt Cobain made hit records with that same crappy pedal. Get it?
@@harleyrider9166 I didn’t say that it’s a sound better vs doesn’t, if anything I said the exact opposite
@@JGHFunRun hmm ok riiiight🤔
@@JGHFunRun so when you say the top end of the Eureka is shrill or plasticky that means that it’s better than the Tube preamp…hmm okay…LMAO🤣🤣
You're absolutely right tube preamps are the best when mixing at compression you'll get a nice sibling on those vocals and warmer low end
I used to get that question as well about warmth and what not. My response is simple, "it's in the performance". Back in the day, you have to play it through perfectly, or at the best way possible with the least iteration as can be. Come the peak of digital recording and everyone just got clinical about it. Punching in here and there and everywhere. At some point, the performance was put to the side. The early 2000s recordings were very prevalent of this phenomenon. Same with the overuse of autotune. It was like "fixing everything in post". I think it's now has tapered down back to performance, at least for live instrument recording. And performance and warmth is slowly coming back. Admittedly, I myself got carried away by the technology for a while. I've actually gotten rid with a lot of plugins and now record in a "tape" fashion, getting it in right the first time and limiting edits only when necessary. And that includes having the right gear and coloration with the signal going in. At the end of the day, it's about solving problems, and if you start off from the right foot, it'll be a breeze later on.
Plugging my strat to a Tubetech preamp and listening to it through a pair of genelecs is an experience id never forget.
Nice job on the video Joe! The only thing is, a couple things: 1. The differences become much more drastic cumulatively, for instance how multiple tracks interact once recorded and stacked, and number 2, the more ridiculous the tube preamp, the larger and slower the transients become which leads to longer and taller sounding recordings because of the even order harmonic distortion, or what is perceived to be glow.
The difference is so small, and with a bit of harmonic enhancement with a plugin, it'd be indistinguishable from the real tube recordings, in a blind-test.
Whenever you (anyone involved in sound) struggle to notice whether there is a difference: the difference is pretty much a waste of time and money to pursue.
I'm starting to think so too! :-))
Agreed
This is exactly the opinion I had a year ago. But it is really not like that: In a professional/full mix, lets say 24 Channels, this subtle difference will add up. It's a little bit like tuning a car: If you just improve your engine alone, it won't have a very big impact on the performance on a racetrack. But if you improve brakes/gearbox/airflow and the Engine, it will have an overall bigger effect. But I agree to some point: You don't need a expensive preamp without transformers/tubes in the circuit, because there is really no advantage. Here is a comparison of Preamps from very cheap to very expensive: www.bonedo.de/artikel/einzelansicht/praxis-lohnen-sich-teure-mic-preamps.html
Thanks! I think you're totally right when monitoring yourself singing through a tube preamp -- there's a certain roundness and warmth that helps project "feeling", which in turn helps getting a better performance. This is so important. Can't wait to download the tracks above!
I like that you give your opinion, other reviewers will ask me to determine what is better where the majority of us will listen on less than ideal conditions, so I appreciate your opinion and that you go into detail about the differernces you hear.
Great test! To my ears, the tube pre was brighter & more raspy in a good way, but both sounded excellent. The stock pre's really surprised me. Thanks heaps, Joe!
There's a difference alright, and the sad thing is that in music even a suttle upgrade will be really expensive.
Oscar Estrella for me it's the monitors. Invest in a good one for mixing. Embarrassingly I was using a Maudio speakers for multimedia. Lol
@Michael Sprague hey what ever we had to do to get some audio
@@markchristopher2signal2 No need to be ashamed. I mixed my first song using a gaming headset, and it didn't sound half bad. Later on I mixed a song using Logitech computer speakers. You gotta use whatever you have, no excuses
Oh gosh my first set of monitors were maudio bx8as for years. Then I got a set of Adam Audios and was omg I wasn't hearing at least of my music and mixes lololol
Downloaded both. Invert the phase of one. Then adjust the volume of one of the tracks until the volume is the lowest. (Stock preamp needs to be lowered 2.0db.) What's left is just the differences between the two. Generally, bunch of high end (8k-12k), and some stuff around 150-250hz. But subtle differences in all frequencies.
He hit every spot 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽 this video explains everything perfect tube amp totally worth it makes your songs 5 times better
Thanks for the very honest, balanced and trying-to-explain-what-that-elusive-warmth-is style of reviewing! Also love your emphasis on incremental changes! In short: Your style of discussing is so pleasant, it sounds like a tube preamp :P
Fun side note regarding "how it makes you play in response": My dad used to say an amp has to be played loud in real-time in the same room because of the resonance happening *between* amp and guitar. I guess it depends on the style of music, but I feel like there's a lot of truth to that over the clinical approach of sending a dead clean signal into a great amp. After all there's that thing we literally call "feedback". Before you get to that full-blown whistling and howling though, there's a point where it adds sustain and resonance similar to the way parts of acoustic instruments resonate (and differently so in different registers and different keys).
Thanks Joe! Yeah, I CAN hear a difference. Like you said, subtle, but it's definitely different. I have 5 different preamps (1 tube and 4 solid state) in my rack along with the stock preamps from my interface (plus a Behringer "Vintager" 2 channel tube pre that's in another rig) and they all add a different flavour depending on the source and the project. I do have one pre specifically for bass guitar (SansAmp RBI) and it get me a real good starting point. The others all have varied mojo and flavours. Pretty familiar with them all now so I usually know before each session what will be used for what... Thanks for what you do brother!!
Had a bk Butler tube driver preamp rack into a 77 Roland jazz chorus amp..and lemme tell you, it made other musicians take immediate notice!
Warmth: the vibrations coming from the speaker that move your skin causing friction producing a feeling of "warmth" perceived by the human senses; hearing, and touch/feel
Great video! a great preamp for a reasonable price is the ART PRO MPA II, just change out the stock tubes with some better ones and you will be amazed
Suffer Fools how much would you recommend spending/ which ones are good? thanks
Steven Larson hey Steven, I used the genelex gold lion 12ax7 matched pair. They run about 75 bucks for the pair on amazon. They definitely made a difference, I know some folks say you can’t tell the difference on tubes but I definitely could. I use that pre on all my tracks now, here is one that it really help: m.th-cam.com/video/TSjPHDx_2rc/w-d-xo.html
Hey Joe. I Completely agree that the the tube preamp sounds better. Whoever says they cant needs to train their ears. Cant say a $2000 value of difference tho lol... If what im after is a a little bit of warmth and detail to a recording than my $300 ART pro mpa 2 tube preamp is where its at! Thank you for the video. Look forward to more!
I have a couple ART Pro MPA's. I think they sound good and make a difference.
Excellent explanation of what differences you hear Joe! The tube preamp track sounds much less exciting but it will be a lot easier to fit in a mix I think.
I actually sold my tube preamp when I got the UAD Apollo four years back, and I've never missed it. I have a lot more variety with the different preamp emulations and it sounds just as good as the real thing to me. And I can just run a clean pre if I want to. So I've found that to be a good alternative. Plus I can easily put it in a back pack, which is a blessing for someone that is often on the go.
Couldn't have done it better myself.. Except I'd take it one step further and compare how a free or cheap plugin can get us closer to the tube pre sound. Of course it'll never be the same, but there has to be a cheap way to get that tube pre sound without actually using it, right?
Just run your vocals through an Accustica plugin and nobody will never know you didn't use an outboard NEVE pre.
I was thinking the same thing. I’ve been putting a “vintage eq” in Logic on every track as the first item on the channel strip if only for the harmonics. I’d be curious to hear how they stack up against the hardware they emulate (Neve, Pultec, and API)
There is a difference and this difference becomes more apparent the more tracks you track with the tube preamps. The most noticeable thing I hear is that the tube preamp makes the recording more "up front" aaaaand, that is a pretty desireable thing when recording vocals!
Yeah, a lot of times a vocal tracked through a tube preamp vs a stock interface preamp ends up being a lot easier to mix.
As for me tube sounds more smooth / round and a little bit distorted but .. I'm listening to it on my laptop now 😀
The tube is great for singing, but the stock sounds better for mixing rap (once eq is added). It's cleaner and gives that feel on the canvas, if that makes sense lol good video
CLA uses the word "excitement" all the time in relation to the sound of tracks. Even though it can be subjective, I think that's probably the best word to describe the sound with the tube pre. It's just got that 'something' and, as you say, a real tube front will almost always sound better then a tube simulation plugin.
Idk if anyone else would be interested in this, but I would really love to see a walk through of your rig from inputs through monitors. Like how you get your analog channels into your I/O interface (and what is it) and which parts of your studio are moveable vs stationary, do you output tracks to individual faders for analog mixdown or just stereo out to the monitors, do you ever use a control surface - things like that. I’m considering moving up from just a two channel interface, but the in/out of it all is kind of overwhelming.
Not an engineer and I have no clue what I'm hearing. But the tube preamp sounds as though it has less of a noise floor.
Thanks for this video
Tubes have always felt velvety to me --like each word is getting it's own special hug. Hard to put that in technical terms. Might be interesting to compare the wave forms on each of your vocal tracks and look for any added nuance, courtesy of the valves. BTW: Your voice is awesome.
Well stated, sir.
For me, it is about the red line & what happens when you pass it.
As I understand it, digital is 1's & 0's {math}, and tubes are electrons passing through a charged field. When over driven, a digital signal either is or isn't; when it isn't you get clicks, pops... small explosions.
An over driven tube is bending the path of the electrons & creating varying degrees of distortion, which is far better than small explosions.
And of course it depends on the sound you're aiming for.
Quality gear is also motivation for many people.
Great video.
So true regarding playing an amp vs re-amping. You really are playing each amp based on how it sounds and feels in real time. Re-amping can give some cool results and sometimes can salvage a track but definitely not the real thing.
Also if you have several preamps with radical different sound, can you combine their sound in different ratios and get an even better custom-made sound out of it.
Great video! Thanks for doing this.
Great video, Joe - wonderful voice and a really useful comparison.
Dude thanks so much for posting this!!! That was so helpful and I can tell what your talking about!
the tube adds the harmonic 2nd even order distortion to the vocals which make it more musical
First, you have a stunning voice.
Second, these are lovely productions - thank you.
I always found that tube preamps sound "rounder" /"cozier". But they're both excellent deliveries, (I love BOTH my tube preamps and my solid state transformer preamps) - just a matter of which tone suits the material in play.
A bit of a science lesson for you all, tubes produce even order harmonics and solid state transister circuits produce odd order harmonics. even order harmonics are more pleasing to the ear : )
Your voice is incredible!!! Thank you, i can hear the difference better now :) it's subtle and it actually depends on what you want to achieve in terms of sound!
Getting back to the initial question: In my opinion there's too much of buzz words in mixing... Warmth, what is that anyway? A muddier low mid? Less treble? Saturation? I know some things are difficult to explain in words but maybe some things just are what they are and need no meaningless buzz word to it?
There is a difference indeed. I’m in my 40’s and have some hearing loss from years of being in the music industry. I can hear a difference on my iPhone speaker and crappy earbuds. The tube kinda smooths things out, I’m guessing it’s the natural compression from the tube. It’s squishier in a way
Great description and helpful vid
Joe, thanks for doing this and I agree with you. I do think the stock preamp also adds more mids that can conflict with other instruments and would require EQ with some of the harsher highs. The thing I notice first thing is that the tube preamp sound lends itself much more easily with other instruments and vocals due to its EQ spectrum. If you took these recordings without any compression or EQ, the tube version would just work better as is in a mix which makes it easier to use. The stock version would stick at more as a solo but add more vocals and instruments and it would require extensive EQ reduction in mids and highs and probably lows as well. You ought to add the music with thses examples "as is"! Thanks for making these videos!
A higher end preamp definitely gives you a fuller, higher quality sound, you can hear it at 3:52. Problem is, the listener is fine playing tunes on their iPhone speaker...
I really think you ought to test this again with an acoustic guitar. I think that's where a bigger difference will come out.
The tube was louder. Ten times out of ten people prefer the louder sound, that’s a problem for the comparison. And, great voice, very easy to listen to.
Thank you !
they will sound audibly different only when overdriven. the warmth/sweetness of tubes is just a result of sensory crosstalk from seeing the tubes glow. you hear what you see... kind of.
That was good insight for this topic. Thanks Joe!
newbies: doesn´t matter actually. go shed the heck out of your instrument. that WILL make a huge difference.
I'd always recommend EVERYONE learn on the stock preamp (at least until you know how to get good levels that aren't peaking and aren't too low) because it's literally pretty much a one-knob deal. And when it comes to preamps, that knob is the most important thing - the level. Knowing this will help with gain staging and troubleshooting as you add more pieces of gear.
But even then, for anyone consistently tracking vocals, or even something like guitars (especially true for acoustic) which span a large dynamic range of sonic information, it's almost always the first piece I *do* recommend you add. Especially if you're using a good mic, you don't want your preamp (or a little later, your converter) bottlenecking the sound.
Do you notice the tube preamp makes the S's & T's stand out more?
They are night and day different the tube preamp has a much control on the total voice and natural sounding in which is going to need less effects and compression/plugins. The other preamp was a bit loud and harsh and needing more effects and control to get it to sit well in the mix.
I look at these sounds with this analogy.
Imagine you're sanding a piece of wood. You're sanding the best you can using just one good grit paper, let's imagine something like 800 grit. You touch the wood and it's soft, it's nice. It's the stock preamp
Now, imagine you're sanding the same piece of wood, but you're using various types of sand paper, you go from a rough 400, to 800, to 1200 and so on and then you touch the piece of wood. It feels nicer, with better quality, it's the same thing as the other one, but feels better.
That's tube preamps, the sound of tube felt like the frequencies were slightly rounder and not as rasp. You can add that raspiness later if you want, but it sounds just a tiny bit smoother
i'm a fan of analog outboard gear but didnt have any... cried for it
Part of the quality difference between these sorts of things have to do with the experience of using either piece of gear. It feels great to use a great piece of gear, but when we get down to the actual difference, its subtle. However, when these subtle differences add up, you definitely get an overall different result, although you could argue that artistic decisions matter a lot more than gear. Either way I think people will still use more expensive gear because it just feels good to have the experience of using it.
Either one sounds good...very good voice! Was there any compression/eq added? Don't hear any room sound either. So those vocals are just the mics straight into the preamps in that room? Kind of amazing.
I’m listening on a phone, To me the stock preamp had more lows and sounded a little bit like you had the input gain set too high and you are slightly too close to the mic. As you sang the louder parts there was a kind of barky tone that compressed the level. The tube preamp sounded like you were slightly further from the mix but the overall tone was very smooth throughout the spectrum
Great video I'm loving the channel
Comparison starts at 3:31 - Scroll down or lock away and just listen through headphones. Make sure you volume is set reasonably high. (out of 100 I am at 30) Each line sung will be either stock or preamp. - First time I watched the video I agreed with Tazmanian Ninja, but after another listen you can definitely tell the difference. And I can tell you with experience, that the plugin fix will take more work and still not get quite the warmth you will get with a preamp. Upgrade your pres' if and when you can. Mic choice will be a huge factor in the chain as well. In the end there is no magic piece of gear that will make you sound better, it starts with you.
Excellent video
Presence and low freqs better on tubes. Tubes treat sibilants better as you allude to as well. Ive made EF86 pentode Tube preamps and the difference is amazingly obvious.
thank you for the audiofiles!!
Honestly, I think this would matter 10 years ago. But in 2020 if music is just a hobby stock everything sounds fine. If you're serious about it however, you will consider a nice preamp.
IMO, modern amps are got to the point where no matter which way of amplification they use- the sound will be crystal clear with some accents depending on the amp itself. I think if you want to get "that" sound, its easier to use a solid dynamic mic like Shure Sm7b or Rode Procaster or some of these famous Electrovoice models and a compressor rather than trying different amps.
With that being said.... point me in the direction of a great stock preamp and point me in the direction of a great tube preamp puhlease!
Thank you for sharing your awesome video
I'm tempted to download the files and slap the Slate Digital 2" tape emulator on the stock preamp track and then compare them. I wonder if that would soften the top end and and some warmth. I'm definitely not going out and buying a $2,000 mic preamp. At least not right now. :)
EDIT: I did that experiment. Interestingly, on my nice studio monitors, the difference was less clear than when I listened on my laptop, probably because on the laptop I wasn't hearing any lows. But there is a difference, and the tape emulator did smooth them out, as expected. Someone with better ears than I have would notice. I have enough hearing loss, that I'm not the best judge.
jneiberger I use the Slate plugins and love how they affect everything. The tape emulator is fantastic!
Your idea makes sense to me cause you’re adding harmonics with the tape emulator, which is what the tube circuitry is doing. Tube circuits and tape saturation add different harmonics, but I find them all pleasing to my ear on just about everything. I do tape on drums and bass (really helps you hear the low end on bad, trebly speakers like a phone), tube on vocals and clean guitars. Distorted guitars I usually don’t bother. They already have overdriven harmonics - probably not gonna notice any extra saturation. My love of recording started on a Tascam 4 track that recorded to cassette. It was stupid how beautiful that thin little tape sounded when you pushed it hot.
I listened to this four times, and I really could not tell a difference. There could be several reasons for this. Three of the main reasons could be: 1. my age (69 in two days) or 2: the fact that I spent a quarter of a century working around fighter jets. 3: I have been making music for nearly 60 years and in the mid 1960s to the early 70s we operated under the premise that rock & roll was made loud to be played loud. Our guitar amps were always turned all the way up. Or...there really isn't any difference.
What would have been interesting is if you had lied to us. When the screen said "STOCK PREAMP" it was actually the "TUBE PREAMP" and "TUBE PREAMP" was actually the "STOCK PREAMP". i have very little doubt that 90% of the people watching this would have not only heard a difference, but that "TUBE PREAMP" would have sounded better albeit subtly. Most people will hear what you tell them they will hear.
Nice voice by the way.
Thanks for your well prepared and presented work.
20 years ago there was a massive difference but in the last 10 years the solid state preamp chips have made huge leaps forward like the Bheringer Xenix in my little desk mixer and other, now standard stuff. I have an ART Tubefire 8 which is really warm and clean, or should I rather say, not as sterile. It is 15 years old and at the time was definitely worth the four figures it sold for. The firewire no longer works properly with Win 10 so I just feed its outputs into my little mixer and it is just as good. I just don't get to record 8 channels at once to disk.
I wouldn't spend the money these days because the new Presonus, Behringer and even some really cheap Chinese noname brands are now so much better than they were.
Thanks Joe! Great Video!
Thanks Joe!!
Good sound quality approaches live. Tubes amps are a pain in the ass and expensive to maintain. Tubes in preamps sound better than solid state, especially if the associated components, such as caps and resistors are of better quality. Generally, this is why Hi-End equipment costs more. The best is hand built, which also adds to the price. A BIG factor is component matching. Sound studios often have what they do because of the need for profit and franchises available.
How do feel about the Presonus Studio Channel: 1-Channel Vacuum-Tube Channel Strip? Does it sound as good as the ADL 700 that is no longer available??? Do you have any recommendations for a Vocal Preamp that is still in production and somewhat budget friendly?? I love the sound you got out of the Roswell k47 and the ADL 700!!!!
For me I can hear the difference. My Apollo’s pres are good but my vocal chain is better! CU-29>511 RND>The Brute to the Apollo
Joe, it's all about EQ (and maybe compression). If you know what you are looking for, just simply boost / cut the bands you like / don't like. This whole conversation is sooooo ... not an issue. blah blah blah
Interesting options: What if your record using a tube mic thru the 'stock' pre? You should still get the tube character, right? Thanks for your response!
you will get some of both pres, depending on how much work each one is doing. its ideal to use a line in on your interface that has no preamp in the way so you can get just the sound of the good external pre.
To be honest, I think valve gear only really makes a difference when you want to put some saturation/overdrive on the signal. When you just want a clean sound, solid state gear can sound great, eg: Roland Jazz chorus guitar amp.
Good point. I used to have a JC120A which I had to rebuild the electronics (replace the caps mainly and occasionally a transistor) on a yearly basis. It was worth it because NOTHING can truly duplicate its iconic sound. But that is the thing. It is actually the massive R&P speakers that give it the sound, not the preamps and amps. Just like the Marshalls depend on Celestions to sound so good. Peavy need the Black Widows or sound ordinary...
Thank you so much. The difference is not worth spending money for a preamp, for me. So I can spend my money for more important things.
i've learned a lot from you master Joe ! thanks again and again !
Excellent job Joe, nice one! Great vocal also - easy on the ears.
I reckon the differences are slight but to my ears the tube pre sounds more natural. I think it would be interesting to do a comparison of two different vocal chains e.g. mic - preamp - compressor - eq - interface - original gear vs clones. I reckon the differences would be more obvious to the ear then as they would stack up through the chain. It does seem that if you want the extra quality it comes at a price most people can't afford. On the flip side, if a home recording doesn't stick out like a sore thumb to the average listener and its a good song and performance then so what. I definitely think the technology we have today is amazing compared with the past and the gap is closing.
Thanks on this man , very informative and I have to agree on everything you said. I have listen it with my yamaha h5 and on krk kns 8400 headphone and got same conclusion and if I may add not just that tube version sounds better, even vibrato in performance sounds more accurate , also some letters are not so pronounced as they are with stock preamp.
He is 1000% correct! That 1% better that you get with a good mic, good preamp, good cord, good compressor, mulitply that by 100! As it generally takes 100 tracks to make a song(roughly speaking)! To that 1% increase you get by using a better mic/preamp/compressor/etc. add's up real quick! Plus it's less stuff you have to fix later on! You Never, Ever, want to fix it in the mix! Ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,ever,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALWAYS get it right, at the source! Your front end! My advice.....get 1 really great mic, 1 good preamp, 1 great compressor, and your golden! Don't buy into anything else! Hell that mic , if it's metal, could be an SM7b! For metal, the last 10 top charting metal songs where sung with an SM7b! So there is that! A BLA173 or 312 preamp is $500 or so, now the compressor that's way harder to get good cheap! And the hell with that ART compressor it's crap your better off with an RNC or DBX 160x vs that ART compressor! Trust me, it's crap and your wasting time and money on it! Save up and get the Bluey by BLA as well, that's good, or the Golden Age La3a is pretty good, and can be great with some simple mods, the other BLA Compressor with the 1176 and la2a combo is good, but do not think it's those 2 compressors as it sounds very different, but it is good. Even better would be a Distressor! You can get all of those tones with a Distressor, and it all sounds good! Everything you run through it sounds good! You run a plain jane bass through it, and boom, it's now this awesome sounding bass! Well not quite but you get my point! The Distressor is king of the castle for cost, use, and all around greatness, as it sounds great on everything, guitars, vocals, drums, bass, sax, rubbing your nutsack on sandpaper sounds good through this thing! So that's my advice! Get an SM7b, a BLA 1073 clone, a Distressor, and a Mogami cabling for it all, run that through your interface(hop fully you've got one of the decent ones as your interface is circuits and gear as well so it has a sound, don't let anyone tell you differently! Interfaces ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT SOUND AND ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE STERILE AND ALL SOUND THE SAME! THAT IS A LIE PERPETRATED BY KEYJOCKEY NOOBS WHO DON'T KNOW SHIT! Now do I get anything from telling you guys this wealth of info? Nope. The reason i'm doing this in my off time right now, is because for me when I started out...there was all this info, but everyone was saying different shit, and no one would tell exactly what I needed to do to get better mixes! OK I needed to buy a better front end...which one? They all pointed to shit that cost $2000 each! I made $2000 in 1.5 months, and already ate ramen and peanut butter and jelly to pay my bills every other month, how was I gonna afford 3 pieces of gear that cost $6000? The answer? I wasn't ! So I bought some crap that sucked ass , that was a channel strip because someone lame said I needed to buy a channel strip as it had a preamp, compressor, and eq in it! So I paid $400 for a Focusrite Channel strip that sucked ass! The only thing usable on it was the preamp, and that was dark as hell, you had to cut everything below 100hz, which made it useless! So my first recording that took 2 years to record nobody would mix, because it was recorded so badly with terrible gear! Well the drum mics where that $800 Shure drum mic kit so they where ok! But the Blue Bluebird condenser mic, the cheap Focusrite channel strip, the MAudio Delta lt interface, and the Berhinger mixing board I used for the drum preamps except for the snare was used with the Focusrite channel strip, where all crap! No one would mix the damn album, and no one told me I had to edit it myself, I thought mixers did that! Still Do TBH! Any mixer who won't edit the material isn't doing their job IMO! Lazy bastards nowadays! I Digress, the point is now here's a list! If you have to get a condensor instead of a dynamic mic! Get the Slate modeling mic! It's way more mic than you could ever need! You could get one of those cheaper U87 clone mics, or U47 clone, etc for around the same price as the Slate mic or Antellope mic, but with those mics you can have a fucking FULL MIC LOCKER of 20+mics! And you can buy more of them when they come out! That means you can use the mic for whatever the hell you want and have fucking GREAT SOUNDS coming out of a mic that goes on sale for $500 that can replicate a mic locker that costs $40,000! THink about that! You all of the sudden have a mic locker worth $40,000? Granted you can only use 1 mic at a time, but still! They also sell SDC mics for $150! So there ya go! It's ridiculous how cheap you can record shit for nowadays! I know this cat who has a studio that cost's a total of $1300 and he's scoring movies and writing all the music for major Hollywood films, and tv shows in his bedroom at home! And he's won awards for it! He uses a fucking ARROW interface from UAD! He can afford to redo his whole house and make a $100,000 studio in his basement! But he doesn't! He uses this stuff because that's all he needs to succeed! So if you broke, there's really no reason you can't get a stellar recording! There's only your lack of skill and talent!
The difference becomes much more apparent with compression, driving an 1176 illustrates this immediately.
Presonus TubePre V2 Tube Microphone Preamp would be my first purchase if that is what you used when you 1st started. I am just getting into it building my Home studio using the TASCAM 16 plugged my dull Golden Age D2 and sounds fantastic piped into my Presonus 1824C gave me the bump that the STOCK 1824 Preamps did NOT help , even with the +60Db gain. The D2 (like the Sure SM57B is a Dynamic cardiod POWER HOGS. Keep me from ordering the Preamp V2 for now. Excited that it worked and gave me PLENTY of HEAD ROOM now. You Joe are helping more than YOU Know !
Congrats for the video! Very useful, finally a comprehensive review! Regards
Love it, great job. Next time would love to see you swap mic cables and repeat. Then we would have heard each mic into each preamp to really hear just the difference in the pres and no mic color. Just a thought and again great job
This was fantastic (As Usual). And really timely as well. For the last few years in my studio I've been using a 2 channel interface Avid interface and an ART Voice Channel (Tube channel strip). But I've been wanting to upgrade to a larger interface.
1. This video gave me the confidence to pull the trigger on a Presonus Studio 1824
2. This video reminded me just how good stock preamps can be. That ADL 700 was awesome, but those stock preamps came pretty close.
**Side Point* This week in my studio I have the pleasure of borrowing a friends LA-610. After about a week I have to say that I prefer my ART Voice Channel. Seems insane but it's true. Am I saying that the ART is better than the Universal Audio? Nope. But I'm saying that they sound very very close, and my preference is probably based on subjectivity and what I like to hear.
I think for voice its not so important/a big difference but make the same Test with Instruments(guitar and bass), that difference is huge :)
Thanks for the video! Might have to go invest in me a preamp now 💯💪🏽
Every mic pre has a different sounds just like every mixer has a different sound it’s all personal preference but yess later on it would be good to invest in a mic preamp
Great video Joe!
hmmm .. the stock pre's sound good, and I feel they shine best in a live situation (as they typically do, PreSonus makes great gear!) The ADL was more open sounding and seemed to capture much more detail in the upper mids around 4-5K and was naturally more flattering to your voice. probably wouldnt have to lift the top end as much in the mix.
Negligible difference. Still, I invested in a 2 channel tube pre-amp; I like how I can overdrive the tubes a bit which adds more character. (subject to the song) Overall, it looks cool, and is what people expect to see.
Yes I heard it, and I liked the tube sound. The costly question for you becomes: When I mix this in with harmonies and backup vocals, and a band, will that difference be audible to me? Now add your audience listening to a low resolution mp3 through the earphones that came with their device, can they hear or appreciate that you spent many dollars on changing to tubes? If the aim of your studio is to make money, the return on investment of going to the tube preamp will be low.
Your moneymaker is your vocal abilities. That will sell because you are talented and that WILL come through the mix and get all the way to the listener's ears.
I have heard few solo demo's as good as yours, in most other cases I am enduring the singer to hear the equipment,
My 2 cent here is the ' color" referred to is the psychoacoustics effects ie how your brain perceives the signals coming from your ears and even in the same individual, the mood at the time of listening to music influences the effects one receives..smoke a joint while listening to the music and you will see what I am talking about..be advised I do not advocate " illicit substance use" but just to make my point...