This is a cool video, but it might make comparison easier if you demonstrated each preamp on each instrument one at a time, rather than groups of different instruments? e.g., show off all four preamps on drum overheads, then all four on bass guitar, then on guitar, etc.
It's not a must but if you can afford different pres, it's great to have. I love having the wa412, wa273, ISAone and then using the last focusrite clarett pre.
I was looking at warm audios preamps last night because I’ve heard some really great things about them. It’s video couldn’t have come at a better time! That WA73 sounds gorgeous
The Heritage Audio 73 is closer to the original circuit design than the Warm unit, but it's more expensive. I think Warm knocked it out of the park with the WA-MPX though. Very nice sounding tube saturation. I wouldn't use it as my only pre, but it's definitely going on my rack for vocal stacks or for vintage sounding vocal parts.
If you want a great preamp with a similar feel, I got the Black Lion Audio 73 and its fantastic! its not a faithful recreation but inspired by the 73 and I love the tone on vocals
That is easy to assume, but not always going to help to make things more comparable, actually that will often make things less comparable, hiding things. Match which part of the levels and in which way? the average? the peaks? Another way? And at what freq range? The ones added by the warm preamps? Or the ones lacking by the clarett? etc. That would be unfair too. There is no one exact best way to match levels to provide a fair comparison when parts of the freq spectrum, harmonics, and dynamics vary so much between the clarett and the warms. The ear does not respond exactly like meters and software. As long as levels are not grossly different it is best to hear them both set to levels where they are most similar, in the ways they do not differ on the average, so you can hear what one is adding versus the other, and not to match at peak levels which would skew things inaccurately. And you dont want to compress or expand things either when trying to match, as preamps have their own dynamics profiles as well, so certain transients will be naturally different even when other parts of the levels are so called matched, but you want to hear the differences, not push those aspects up or down to match in ways they differ in the time dynamic domain
The wa12 changed bass recording for me compared to direct to interface. I run it super hot and adjust the output accordingly also I always run with the tone knob on
Listening through a pair of HS7's, these pre-amps sound like they are adding mud or making the tone thinner (especially the guitar). Also, the dynamic range seems to just disappear once these are engaged.
i owned all 3 (before my storage got ransacked but thats another story) the b173 was absoluteluy great for vocals and bass. a tad bit noisy, just like the original 1073. the b12a I loved, and used them for literally all of my electric guitar recordings. the auteur was a great little deal too, sounded particularly nice on acoustic guitars, but the auteur itself is a great affordable preamp that not only can get the job done on any instrument or vocal, but the fact that it's 2 pres makes it a great deal, and particularly why I ked recording acoustic guitar in stereo with them. as a young chicagoan at the time, I lived right by the shop and was a bit of a fanboy- at one point everything I used was bla- from the a modded motu sound card to everything else. I've expanded my horizons a bit since then, but I'll tell you that I made some great recordings and was confident as ever running a fully fitted bla home studio 👍
The W73 EQ is my favorite, Then the TB12 really impressed me. The WA-MPX has a cool vibe to it but not my cup of tea. I don't like the WA-412 sounds cheap
It sounds clean when not driven and Focusrite Clarett is a good clean preamp too. That is why they sound roughly similar. Many preamps nowadays are very transparent and clean sounding circuits.
I used to say that til I bought the wa73. Totally nails the uad neve plugin. With these pres you get some headroom, some “tridimensional” sound that tou cant exactly reach in plugins
My band recorded two sessions at well known studios in Dallas Tx and Nashville Tn. Both were the typical million dollar rooms w/ walls of Neve/ Joe Meek and other gear in racks. Eng.ed/mixed by people w/ hit records. We then in the early 2000s recorded our last songs in a home studio that had good mics but a 20 yr sound craft board , a few cheaper rack mount units, even a couple of alesis and two Otari 1'' tape machines. We only used 1. Mastered it on to CD and l swear it sounds better now than the two legit studios. lve since had vinyl pressed and it clearly sounds better on vinyl. ld say be leary of setting up studios w/ high end gear because it seems to me a lot of it is bought and then it just sets in the rack unused.
Any decent studio doesn't let good gear sit...neve api etc...that stuff gets used every day. But then you mention joe meek, which is lower end 90s/00s stuff not made in a long time, few if any pro studios used meek then or now, so doesnt sound like a very pro studio. Every studio high or low end will have certain pieces that are only used here and there for specialized sounds, but their daily workhorse units are usually the real versions of the warm ones here. The meek if anything would be the one sitting unused. Sure you can get a great sound at home with only a few pieces of decent gear that is neither low or high end but you have to know what you are doing and it may take more work, and have less diverse sounds from limited gear, etc. The otari tape machine helped tho, those are not cheap for a home studio. Any decent studio tho will make it very easy to get great and diverse sounds quick and with little effort as they do it every day. Home results will be mixed and take more effort and luck.
@@RocknJazzer plenty of decent studios have rack filler gear, though I doubt anyone is letting their Neve modules go unused or unsold these days. That said, if it was the early aughts then you’d be hard pressed to find a studio that didn’t have a Joemeek opto comp. This was also the era where people were convinced they needed to sell off all that noisy, old gear for more modern, transparent pieces. Once everyone realized what nice harmonic distortion did for audio, it started creeping back into our gear (and plugins), and old racked modules started going for $12k+ 😆
@@Ascoundrel the SC4 was $2000 when it came out in 1999. Hardly low end at the time. When PMI took over they started aiming down market and cheapening the brand. The SC2 and SC4 were in almost every studio at the time, and remain solid drum bus compressors. Ted Fletcher was no slouch when it came to designing gear, a shame his work gets dragged through the mud 20+ years later.
Yes. The pre matters. Showcasing solo instruments is informative, however a mere iceberg tip. The more tracks you use, exactly how much it matters will be revealed. Whether recording acoustically or DI, some get muddy much sooner than others. Bears repeating: Mic matters more, as does miking, the instrument(s), and the acoustic space itself. Technique is the real sauce, as YMMV
in general you are right. badly ear trained and ill spotted mics will make much more of a difference to a proper setup. But assuming that you are trained and have experience under your belt to nail down the basic techniques of mic placement, the preamp will then make a fairly substantial difference. but then again, its all about what your goals are- a clean perfect representation, a little color/ saturation, etc. 1 thing I'll agree with is it does certainly become an issue of diminished returns, once you've nailed your techniques and ear, trying to get it to sound better and better. the costs get higher and higher for not so much of a difference
Mic preamps cost SO MUCH MONEY and, to my ears, barely change the sound. And not always for the better. Am I wrong for thinking many sonic changes could be achieved simply by moving the mic (bass excepted, of course, since it’s DI)?
We can argue all day about nice converters really making a difference or not, but mic pres? There’s no question they make a big difference. That said companies like warm are doing a good job of making nice sounding pres at a more accessible price. I have some neve and api as well as some WA, and sometimes I go for the WA over the more expensive ones. If I had to choose between recording a song with the best mics using only entry level pres, or just one SM57 through the best vintage pres, I’d go with the 57 and the great pres
@@Ascoundrel weird take. No amount of careful mic placement is going to make a dirt cheap interface sound as good as a high end interface with great preamps. With vocals in particular, 6-12” from the mic in a fairly dead room is perfectly good mic placement for %90 of situations. It’s not rocket science. And yes you can absolutely hear the difference good pres make even on a small home studio with rokits. Hell, you can hear the difference on AirPods. And there’s plenty of great sounding gear from 2019 to now. I love some of my recently purchased new gear. @anthony rivers, don’t listen to this guy. Good preamps make a huge difference. You’ll notice the change right away
Recording must not be your thing for such an off handed troll comment. Let's hear your recordings and gear. You probably dont have any. These warm audio preamps are pretty accurate clones of some of the best most costly gear ever, used on many if not most of your and most peoples favorite bands and albums of all time regardless of genre or era. The Warm preamps add very noticeable amounts of varying degrees of smoothness, fullness, punch, harmonics, clarity and presence that the plain Clarett lacks completely. The only time anything sound like what you say is when they are purposely made to distort on purpose which they are not made to purposely do, but on some things that is desirable but you dont have to set them that way. The Warms provide access to the sounds of the classics at a more affordable price point.
@@emersonvella I am not for any particular brand I am for classic analog vintage gear, the originals preferably, but can understand some cannot afford those. These warms are near clones of classic gear most all bands and music thru history have used, so you may want to check your ears or stop listening to music as 99% of music must sound like wetfarts to you then, earwax buildup is a real thing. And feel free to share your own recordings and the gear you use rather than making personal retorts, stick to subject of gear and music examples so we can hear your great music and gear, looking forwards to hearing your great sounds and the special gear you use to get those sounds
@@INADRM I am not for warm i am for classic gear, your "All That Is (All That Was)" [PERFORMANCE] sounds horrible lol, that is a true wetfart mess of noise, and a guitar is out of tune before you even hit the pitch bend pedal so sure you are the expert over all the top engineers who use the real versions of the classic gear warm is cloning here
This is a cool video, but it might make comparison easier if you demonstrated each preamp on each instrument one at a time, rather than groups of different instruments? e.g., show off all four preamps on drum overheads, then all four on bass guitar, then on guitar, etc.
@@Ascoundrel sure bud
@@Ascoundrel You don't know what harmonic distortion means huh
The Drum clip with the WA-MPX tape saturation mode engaged is right up my alley, really want this piece of gear
i love how the clarett peaks much higher than the external pres yet the external pres sound louder !! harmonic distortion babyyy
1:20 mpx drums
3:45 73 drums
5:50 tb12 drums
8:07 412 drums
2:35 mpx a.g.
4:46 73 a.g.
7:00 tb12 a.g.
9:14 412 a.g.
The MPX on the acoustic guitar sounds phenomenal
💯
I bought one after hearing this demo! after 2 weeks with the MPX I can honestly say its even better than it sounds in this video.
Great, now I'll have My Sharona stuck in my head all day.
I haven't seen a ton of videos with the TB12 or the 412 so thanks for making a good comparison with that!
It's not a must but if you can afford different pres, it's great to have. I love having the wa412, wa273, ISAone and then using the last focusrite clarett pre.
I was looking at warm audios preamps last night because I’ve heard some really great things about them. It’s video couldn’t have come at a better time! That WA73 sounds gorgeous
The Heritage Audio 73 is closer to the original circuit design than the Warm unit, but it's more expensive. I think Warm knocked it out of the park with the WA-MPX though. Very nice sounding tube saturation. I wouldn't use it as my only pre, but it's definitely going on my rack for vocal stacks or for vintage sounding vocal parts.
If you want a great preamp with a similar feel, I got the Black Lion Audio 73 and its fantastic! its not a faithful recreation but inspired by the 73 and I love the tone on vocals
Drums wa412 08:09 Mpx 01:22 wa73 03:46 tb12 05:50
Acoustic wa412 09:14 Mpx 02:36 wa73 04:46 tb12 07:07
I just got the BAE 1073MP. I love it. The Analog saturation sounds so good. It's inspiring even direct
I’m trying to hold off on and get that one. But might get the mpx. I really want the BAE 1073dmp.
I absolutely love my TB12. It's the most versatile preamp I've ever owned and I really regret not getting it sooner.
Tape saturation on the bass reminds me of the bass tone on queens of the Stone Age songs for the deaf album
That's probably Eric Valemtine, dude is a legend. I'm pretty sure there's a video about that on his channel. Definitely one about the guitar tones
Would’ve been a much better comparison if they matched the levels.
That is easy to assume, but not always going to help to make things more comparable, actually that will often make things less comparable, hiding things. Match which part of the levels and in which way? the average? the peaks? Another way? And at what freq range? The ones added by the warm preamps? Or the ones lacking by the clarett? etc. That would be unfair too. There is no one exact best way to match levels to provide a fair comparison when parts of the freq spectrum, harmonics, and dynamics vary so much between the clarett and the warms. The ear does not respond exactly like meters and software. As long as levels are not grossly different it is best to hear them both set to levels where they are most similar, in the ways they do not differ on the average, so you can hear what one is adding versus the other, and not to match at peak levels which would skew things inaccurately. And you dont want to compress or expand things either when trying to match, as preamps have their own dynamics profiles as well, so certain transients will be naturally different even when other parts of the levels are so called matched, but you want to hear the differences, not push those aspects up or down to match in ways they differ in the time dynamic domain
The wa12 changed bass recording for me compared to direct to interface. I run it super hot and adjust the output accordingly also I always run with the tone knob on
So funny I hate it on bass. Goes to show how perception makes or breaks gear.
@@WOODENYOKE Hah I've tried all kinds of DIs and this one really did it for me.
Listening through a pair of HS7's, these pre-amps sound like they are adding mud or making the tone thinner (especially the guitar). Also, the dynamic range seems to just disappear once these are engaged.
Interesting, what do you use or would recommend?
Honestly, the only one I really liked was the MPX. The Neve clone was OK. The API based stuff sounded lousy, and I love me some API pres.
Cool. Now do hardware Preamps and EQs versus software plugin emulations.
Please do something similar with the Black Lion B173 Quad, B12A and Auteur Quad.
i owned all 3 (before my storage got ransacked but thats another story) the b173 was absoluteluy great for vocals and bass. a tad bit noisy, just like the original 1073. the b12a I loved, and used them for literally all of my electric guitar recordings. the auteur was a great little deal too, sounded particularly nice on acoustic guitars, but the auteur itself is a great affordable preamp that not only can get the job done on any instrument or vocal, but the fact that it's 2 pres makes it a great deal, and particularly why I ked recording acoustic guitar in stereo with them.
as a young chicagoan at the time, I lived right by the shop and was a bit of a fanboy- at one point everything I used was bla- from the a modded motu sound card to everything else. I've expanded my horizons a bit since then, but I'll tell you that I made some great recordings and was confident as ever running a fully fitted bla home studio
👍
@@rufussthubbins8891 Thanks man!
The W73 EQ is my favorite, Then the TB12 really impressed me. The WA-MPX has a cool vibe to it but not my cup of tea. I don't like the WA-412 sounds cheap
It sounds clean when not driven and Focusrite Clarett is a good clean preamp too. That is why they sound roughly similar. Many preamps nowadays are very transparent and clean sounding circuits.
I mean, if you're changin eq settings etc then ofc it gonna sound different but you can do that perfectly with plugins aswell ..
I used to say that til I bought the wa73. Totally nails the uad neve plugin. With these pres you get some headroom, some “tridimensional” sound that tou cant exactly reach in plugins
The tone beast sounded great on drums.
My band recorded two sessions at well known studios in Dallas Tx and Nashville Tn. Both were the typical million dollar rooms w/ walls of Neve/ Joe Meek and other gear in racks. Eng.ed/mixed by people w/ hit records. We then in the early 2000s recorded our last songs in a home studio that had good mics but a 20 yr sound craft board , a few cheaper rack mount units, even a couple of alesis and two Otari 1'' tape machines. We only used 1. Mastered it on to CD and l swear it sounds better now than the two legit studios. lve since had vinyl pressed and it clearly sounds better on vinyl. ld say be leary of setting up studios w/ high end gear because it seems to me a lot of it is bought and then it just sets in the rack unused.
Got links?
If it was country music... then... that is different
Any decent studio doesn't let good gear sit...neve api etc...that stuff gets used every day. But then you mention joe meek, which is lower end 90s/00s stuff not made in a long time, few if any pro studios used meek then or now, so doesnt sound like a very pro studio. Every studio high or low end will have certain pieces that are only used here and there for specialized sounds, but their daily workhorse units are usually the real versions of the warm ones here. The meek if anything would be the one sitting unused.
Sure you can get a great sound at home with only a few pieces of decent gear that is neither low or high end but you have to know what you are doing and it may take more work, and have less diverse sounds from limited gear, etc. The otari tape machine helped tho, those are not cheap for a home studio. Any decent studio tho will make it very easy to get great and diverse sounds quick and with little effort as they do it every day. Home results will be mixed and take more effort and luck.
@@RocknJazzer plenty of decent studios have rack filler gear, though I doubt anyone is letting their Neve modules go unused or unsold these days. That said, if it was the early aughts then you’d be hard pressed to find a studio that didn’t have a Joemeek opto comp. This was also the era where people were convinced they needed to sell off all that noisy, old gear for more modern, transparent pieces. Once everyone realized what nice harmonic distortion did for audio, it started creeping back into our gear (and plugins), and old racked modules started going for $12k+ 😆
@@Ascoundrel the SC4 was $2000 when it came out in 1999. Hardly low end at the time. When PMI took over they started aiming down market and cheapening the brand. The SC2 and SC4 were in almost every studio at the time, and remain solid drum bus compressors. Ted Fletcher was no slouch when it came to designing gear, a shame his work gets dragged through the mud 20+ years later.
If I had the cash flow, i'd be loaded with Warm Audio's preamps... IMO, for the money they are very hard to beat. One day maybe.
Warm are making some amazing stuff atm.
Getting the WA MPX
Thank you for the video
WA-73 absolutely kills on bass. Really fattens up drums too.
Wa mpx beutiful old school
+ bluey compressor only
vocals reddi direct box active is fuego. Instruments
Wa412 for me then wa73 or wa mpx.
Yes. The pre matters. Showcasing solo instruments is informative, however a mere iceberg tip.
The more tracks you use, exactly how much it matters will be revealed. Whether recording acoustically or DI, some get muddy much sooner than others.
Bears repeating: Mic matters more, as does miking, the instrument(s), and the acoustic space itself. Technique is the real sauce, as YMMV
in general you are right. badly ear trained and ill spotted mics will make much more of a difference to a proper setup. But assuming that you are trained and have experience under your belt to nail down the basic techniques of mic placement, the preamp will then make a fairly substantial difference. but then again, its all about what your goals are- a clean perfect representation, a little color/ saturation, etc.
1 thing I'll agree with is it does certainly become an issue of diminished returns, once you've nailed your techniques and ear, trying to get it to sound better and better. the costs get higher and higher for not so much of a difference
Ugh this video just made me buy an MPX
Not to be a hater. This a great demonstration. But time stamping from REVERB needs to be better. This is your market!!
With clean interface preamps and plugins that emulate anything in the signal chain there is absolutely no reason to pay for those archaic knock-offs.
Mic preamps cost SO MUCH MONEY and, to my ears, barely change the sound. And not always for the better. Am I wrong for thinking many sonic changes could be achieved simply by moving the mic (bass excepted, of course, since it’s DI)?
We can argue all day about nice converters really making a difference or not, but mic pres? There’s no question they make a big difference. That said companies like warm are doing a good job of making nice sounding pres at a more accessible price. I have some neve and api as well as some WA, and sometimes I go for the WA over the more expensive ones. If I had to choose between recording a song with the best mics using only entry level pres, or just one SM57 through the best vintage pres, I’d go with the 57 and the great pres
@@Ascoundrel weird take. No amount of careful mic placement is going to make a dirt cheap interface sound as good as a high end interface with great preamps. With vocals in particular, 6-12” from the mic in a fairly dead room is perfectly good mic placement for %90 of situations. It’s not rocket science.
And yes you can absolutely hear the difference good pres make even on a small home studio with rokits. Hell, you can hear the difference on AirPods.
And there’s plenty of great sounding gear from 2019 to now. I love some of my recently purchased new gear.
@anthony rivers, don’t listen to this guy. Good preamps make a huge difference. You’ll notice the change right away
API form factor beats other rack spaces...
sheeesh
Sounds like wet farts on most settings 😂 is this supposed to be a demo?
Recording must not be your thing for such an off handed troll comment. Let's hear your recordings and gear. You probably dont have any. These warm audio preamps are pretty accurate clones of some of the best most costly gear ever, used on many if not most of your and most peoples favorite bands and albums of all time regardless of genre or era. The Warm preamps add very noticeable amounts of varying degrees of smoothness, fullness, punch, harmonics, clarity and presence that the plain Clarett lacks completely. The only time anything sound like what you say is when they are purposely made to distort on purpose which they are not made to purposely do, but on some things that is desirable but you dont have to set them that way. The Warms provide access to the sounds of the classics at a more affordable price point.
@@RocknJazzer if that's what you want to tell yourself, sure why not?
@@RocknJazzer It really does sound like farts though (listen to the bass). Stop shilling for Warm, it's embarrassing and degrading,.
@@emersonvella I am not for any particular brand I am for classic analog vintage gear, the originals preferably, but can understand some cannot afford those. These warms are near clones of classic gear most all bands and music thru history have used, so you may want to check your ears or stop listening to music as 99% of music must sound like wetfarts to you then, earwax buildup is a real thing. And feel free to share your own recordings and the gear you use rather than making personal retorts, stick to subject of gear and music examples so we can hear your great music and gear, looking forwards to hearing your great sounds and the special gear you use to get those sounds
@@INADRM I am not for warm i am for classic gear, your "All That Is (All That Was)" [PERFORMANCE] sounds horrible lol, that is a true wetfart mess of noise, and a guitar is out of tune before you even hit the pitch bend pedal so sure you are the expert over all the top engineers who use the real versions of the classic gear warm is cloning here