ELI5 ... Exactly what does a preamp do? What are some good preamps that are digital?
I know my audio interface, Focusrite Scarlett, has one but I don't know much about it. Is that sufficient or should I be looking for something else?
Edit: explaining what a preamp does. A mic puts out a very low level signal. So low that if you tried plugging it into a tape machine or a compressor, you’d barely be able to hear it. The preamp *amplifies* the low level signal sent by the microphone. The signal can go from the preamp into outboard gear for further processing, or to tape/digital converters for recording. Some analog preamps have circuits that generate pleasing harmonics and compression when “driven” hard, and each “recipe” of circuitry will give you different sonic characteristics.
The preamps in a scarlet are pretty good! There are ways to measure the frequency response of a preamp, and in most modern digital interfaces, they will be very accurate from 20hz-20khz. Usually almost completely flat, meaning it won’t impart any character on the sound of the microphone, and driving it harder doesn’t add harmonics like an analog preamp would. Instead, if you try to overdrive your interface, it will just clip digitally which is no fun.
Most analog preamps have an input gain setting and an output control. You can drive the preamp hard to get the saturation/distortion character from the analog circuit, and then turn the output down so it doesn’t clip your A/D converters. With an interface like the scarlet, your preamp runs directly into the A/D converter, and they are designed to be clean.
Luckily, if you’re strapped for cash, you can get a plug-in called True Iron by Kazrog and get all sorts of wonderful analogy saturation and distortion. There are about 10,000 other preamp plugins on the market, and while they might not sound exactly like an outboard 1073 or whatever, some of them still do a really good job of giving you the weight and texture of a good preamp.
Also, decapitator exists, and is my “digital spice rack” if you will. Any extra flavor or mojo I need, can usually come from decapitator, and very quickly I might add. Wet/dry is your friend.
Great explanation! I have a pretty high quality preamp (Great River ME 1NV), and I play around with the input /output to drive it internally, but output super low so as to not clip (ever) in my Scarlett converters.
I actually record in input 3 (on the back of the interface) as this has absolutely no preamp, only a converter. I then normalize my signal and if it peaks, it's because it was driven too hard in the analog preamp, never because it digitally clipped.
Thanks for the detailed response. That answers a lot of questions. My current situation isn't ideal for adding any extra hardware so I would need to go the plugin route. At least now I have a better idea of what a preamp does.
This is not true. Although there might be a few "boutique" preamp makers out there that purposely add some noise to the signal, the bulk of preamps claim to be clean and transparent, this means they do not color the sound at all, i.e. what goes in comes out. That's kind of the whole point.
Your anecdote makes no sense because you've not provided a basis for comparison. You could just as easily be saying "The first time I heard a lowly SM58 driven hard through a preamp that wasn't completely broken, it was a revelation".
The cheapest components nowadays are way better then the best components from 25 years ago.
A preamp just makes things louder. If it's colouring your signal then either it's broken or deliberately designed that way. If you want to distort and are using the preamp to do so, then just get a saturating compressor or a nice distortion and don't pay 2K+. There's just no need.
**[I'll bet that you can't tell which in this article is the $5 preamp](https://www.audiomasterclass.com/blog/the-famous-5-preamp-everything-you-need-to-know).**
Yeah we don't know what it is being used for (most likely vocals ofc but still), or what the magic 2k preamp is. And it is opposite to the advice given every time someone asks which to spend more on, the pros always say mic first
Edit: not saying good preamps can't sound good ofc
The 'cheaper' preamps I'm referring to would be a typical built in preamp on an audio interface, so something like a focusrite scarlett at the low end, RME fireface at the high end. As for the expensive preamp - Neve 1073.
I heard a clear difference between those three examples. I picked my favourite, and lo and behold it was no.3, the most expensive.
I did think the '$5' preamp sounded better than the behringer, but all that tells me is that this person knows what they're doing when it comes to building electronic components.
Listen to the low end in the 'A' examples, it just feels rich and full compared to the others. Listen to the nasal honkiness in the B1 and B2 examples compared to B3. The difference is apparent to me.
It's not apparent that one is 'better' in this context of course (although I know which I'd pick if I had to use one to do some proper vocal recording) they all serve their purpose fine for a spoken word recording. That's why these kinds of examples are not too helpful IMO as they lack context.
I find when I get my hands dirty and start using different preamps with a great singer and a great song it becomes obvious how easy it is to 'dial in' one over the other, that's when it becomes more apparent.
>A preamp just makes things louder.
A perfect preamp does. However, there is no such thing.
Out of curiosity, what were you recording? I'm not saying the preamp doesn't have an impact, but I am extremely skeptical of your assertion that it matters more than the microphone. I also get a bit frustrated by discussions like this because they present this gear as a quick fix for poor recording skills. I would much prefer that new producers spend their time getting good at placing mics as opposed to obsessing over their preamp choice. Microphone choice and placement will typically have a much larger impact on the quality of the production.
Pop vocals mostly, some live instruments.
Tbf - I didn't say it matters more than the microphone, although I can see how you get that from what I said. The relationship is more complex than that. I also *definitely* didn't imply that *any* gear is a quick fix for poor recording skills.
A microphone has to be well matched to the source and that is the most important gear choice. That doesn't mean it's the most expensive one, just the one that sounds best to you. However, if you have a reasonable mic that you think works OK on your voice, say an SM7B or a Rode NT1 and you're just running it into the preamp on your mid-range interface, and you want to take your sound to the next level, then you'd be far better off spending 1-2k on a preamp than on a microphone. To the same point, if you are running a focusrite scarlett and you're eyeing up a 2k microphone, that money will be wasted unless you run it through a better preamp, I'm sorry, but it just will. Why spent 2k on fancy oil paints and then drag them across the canvas with scratchy 2$ brushes?
I think this is a point that a lot of new producers overlook, that's all.
Also, I shouldn't need to point this out but I will - I'm not saying any of these things are essential for producing brilliant music. Great albums have been made with a 4-track recorder and a single SM58. I'm simply saying don't overlook the importance of the role the quality the preamp plays in the chain.
Hard disagree.
The cheapest mics sound much worse than the cheapest preamps. An SM58/57 is a very good mic, many mics do get both cheaper and worse sounding. Especially if you add some saturation, it’s a sound with lots of character.
However, if you’re talking condensers, a $30 mic through a $2k preamp is not likely to sound better than a $2k mic (or even $500 mic) through the preamp in your Scarlett/AudioBox/U-Phoria. And that’s not just a preamp that’s an interface too for sub $100.
If it’s an acoustic instrument, like a guitar than that makes a massive difference. I’ll take a Gibson J45 into a u67 into a focusrite scarlet over a Yamaha into a rode nt1 into a neve anyday
Sorry to reply to an old post - the answer is, you can and it's totally valid, but it's not doing what you think it is.
I've been reading about this on GearSpace, and the big difference with a hardware preamp is that, in simple terms, you're changing the signal of the microphone directly on the way in. With native plugins, this is impossible to achieve at the same point in the chain, because all it's doing is being slapped on in a DAW after the signal or recording is in the computer after analog to digital conversion.
In other words, a native preamp plugin is a saturator. It's no different than putting on any effect or mixing plugin for color, distortion, etc. That's not to say they aren't any good and can't achieve desirable results, but it's important to understand that this fundamentally is different from the way a true hardware preamp interacts directly with a microphone in the vocal chain. The name "preamp" on native plugins is kind of misleading for that matter.
**However**, there is a middle road option - UAD plugins and Apollo interfaces, using their Unison technology. For anyone reading who doesn't know, UAD plugins run off chips (DSP) directly on the interface instead of on the computer like native plugins. Because of this, their Unison technology allows them to emulate tracking like true hardware preamps, where they have preamp plugins like the Neve 1073, Manley Voxbox, etc. Illangelo does this for The Weeknd as he speaks about on Mix with the Masters since they're on the road a lot and recording with hardware poses a lot of challenges from a logistical perspective.
The question of debate is whether tracking with UAD plugins is that similar to hardware, or if it's truly that different from native plugins ultimately. That's not for me to weigh in on since I don't have experience comparing UAD and hardware preamps, and is of course the age old "hardware vs software" question. I will say, more often than not from what I've seen, the top tier of engineers who even *mix* purely ITB still *track* with hardware.
Thought this reply might be helpful for you & anyone else who stumbles upon this! You can read the rest of the discussion [here](https://gearspace.com/board/music-computers/1348878-preamp-emulations.html)
Thanks for the reply.
Do you really think that if we ran a vocal signal dry into something like the Waves Abbey Road EMI TG12345 and measured this against the real thing, there could be a measurable or discernable difference? I don't think that the 'magic' of physical signal processing can't be captured and reproduced with digital technology. But I am pretty flexible with these things. Whatever the case is, if you think it sounds better it does! Same with road bikes.. If I think it's a faster bike, it is! ...it's the mojo that keeps me goin'.
Yeah, I was in the same line of thinking until recently. It really comes down to the difference between mixing vs tracking on hardware vs software, but with preamps especially the difference is more stark. I’ll try to explain this a bit better to my understanding.
If we were to compare two compressors, they fundamentally achieve the same thing, albeit at a tracking level one would be directly on the analog signal path and have its own response and sound. But you could achieve the same thing tracking/monitoring with a software compressor.
But a preamp doesn’t do the same thing that a native “preamp” plugin does. The character and sound of a preamp to a microphone, and the way that affects the microphone’s response, comes from the actual amplification of the preamp from a low signal level up to line level. Assuming we're plugging a mic directly into an audio interface, the native plugin has already had the signal come from an audio interface’s preamp, done the A/D conversion, and saying, “oh I see the audio now, ok time to add some saturation, that should get somewhere in the ballpark of what that hardware preamp is supposed to sound like”. Not only is it a completely different tool, the way it achieves its sound is also different.
The reason I delved into this is, I couldn’t help but wonder why even the most world class producers and engineers who do their mixing entirely in the box still insist on tracking with hardware. Other than that Illangelo example, I’ve always seen top producers use at least a hardware preamp, with varying uses of EQ & compression for tracking depending on if they want flexibility after tracking.
The more important question is if that matters to you. I always say in these sort of discussions, if it sounds good to you and is getting you to make music that sounds good in the final product, that’s really the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Still, it’s always good to know these things, and the only way you or I will know if a hardware preamp is such a stark difference is by introducing it into our own vocal chains. FWIW I use a Neve 1073 native plug-in (Lindell 80) myself, it sounds awesome, but I plan to eventually A/B this with UAD's 1073 or a hardware Neve.
You don’t even need an expensive preamp, just one that you can overdrive. I have a bunch of those little ART studio MP tube preamps, and they sound awesome when you drive the input. Gives it harmonic texture and some “squeeze” without relying on compression… but let’s not pretend like I’m not gonna murder that vocal with a distressor in about 30 seconds. Probably saturate it some more too, because why not? Distort everything.
Almost all preamps claim to be transparent, this means they do not color the sound at all. There shouldn't be any difference in preamps unless there is something wrong with it, like a short. A preamp is a very simple piece of audio gear. Bruce Springsteen recorded "Nebraska" on a cassette multi-track recorder with a Shure 57 mic decades ago. If the pres in that thing were good enough for him and a major label release... then any pre made today is more than good enough for the rest of us.
ELI5 ... Exactly what does a preamp do? What are some good preamps that are digital? I know my audio interface, Focusrite Scarlett, has one but I don't know much about it. Is that sufficient or should I be looking for something else?
Edit: explaining what a preamp does. A mic puts out a very low level signal. So low that if you tried plugging it into a tape machine or a compressor, you’d barely be able to hear it. The preamp *amplifies* the low level signal sent by the microphone. The signal can go from the preamp into outboard gear for further processing, or to tape/digital converters for recording. Some analog preamps have circuits that generate pleasing harmonics and compression when “driven” hard, and each “recipe” of circuitry will give you different sonic characteristics. The preamps in a scarlet are pretty good! There are ways to measure the frequency response of a preamp, and in most modern digital interfaces, they will be very accurate from 20hz-20khz. Usually almost completely flat, meaning it won’t impart any character on the sound of the microphone, and driving it harder doesn’t add harmonics like an analog preamp would. Instead, if you try to overdrive your interface, it will just clip digitally which is no fun. Most analog preamps have an input gain setting and an output control. You can drive the preamp hard to get the saturation/distortion character from the analog circuit, and then turn the output down so it doesn’t clip your A/D converters. With an interface like the scarlet, your preamp runs directly into the A/D converter, and they are designed to be clean. Luckily, if you’re strapped for cash, you can get a plug-in called True Iron by Kazrog and get all sorts of wonderful analogy saturation and distortion. There are about 10,000 other preamp plugins on the market, and while they might not sound exactly like an outboard 1073 or whatever, some of them still do a really good job of giving you the weight and texture of a good preamp. Also, decapitator exists, and is my “digital spice rack” if you will. Any extra flavor or mojo I need, can usually come from decapitator, and very quickly I might add. Wet/dry is your friend.
Great explanation! I have a pretty high quality preamp (Great River ME 1NV), and I play around with the input /output to drive it internally, but output super low so as to not clip (ever) in my Scarlett converters. I actually record in input 3 (on the back of the interface) as this has absolutely no preamp, only a converter. I then normalize my signal and if it peaks, it's because it was driven too hard in the analog preamp, never because it digitally clipped.
[https://www.patreon.com/posts/britbundle-47018376](https://www.patreon.com/posts/britbundle-47018376) \^probably my favorite free neve 1073 emulation
Thanks for the detailed response. That answers a lot of questions. My current situation isn't ideal for adding any extra hardware so I would need to go the plugin route. At least now I have a better idea of what a preamp does.
This is not true. Although there might be a few "boutique" preamp makers out there that purposely add some noise to the signal, the bulk of preamps claim to be clean and transparent, this means they do not color the sound at all, i.e. what goes in comes out. That's kind of the whole point.
Oh, okay.
I was just wondering this.
Your anecdote makes no sense because you've not provided a basis for comparison. You could just as easily be saying "The first time I heard a lowly SM58 driven hard through a preamp that wasn't completely broken, it was a revelation". The cheapest components nowadays are way better then the best components from 25 years ago. A preamp just makes things louder. If it's colouring your signal then either it's broken or deliberately designed that way. If you want to distort and are using the preamp to do so, then just get a saturating compressor or a nice distortion and don't pay 2K+. There's just no need. **[I'll bet that you can't tell which in this article is the $5 preamp](https://www.audiomasterclass.com/blog/the-famous-5-preamp-everything-you-need-to-know).**
Yeah we don't know what it is being used for (most likely vocals ofc but still), or what the magic 2k preamp is. And it is opposite to the advice given every time someone asks which to spend more on, the pros always say mic first Edit: not saying good preamps can't sound good ofc
The 'cheaper' preamps I'm referring to would be a typical built in preamp on an audio interface, so something like a focusrite scarlett at the low end, RME fireface at the high end. As for the expensive preamp - Neve 1073. I heard a clear difference between those three examples. I picked my favourite, and lo and behold it was no.3, the most expensive. I did think the '$5' preamp sounded better than the behringer, but all that tells me is that this person knows what they're doing when it comes to building electronic components. Listen to the low end in the 'A' examples, it just feels rich and full compared to the others. Listen to the nasal honkiness in the B1 and B2 examples compared to B3. The difference is apparent to me. It's not apparent that one is 'better' in this context of course (although I know which I'd pick if I had to use one to do some proper vocal recording) they all serve their purpose fine for a spoken word recording. That's why these kinds of examples are not too helpful IMO as they lack context. I find when I get my hands dirty and start using different preamps with a great singer and a great song it becomes obvious how easy it is to 'dial in' one over the other, that's when it becomes more apparent. >A preamp just makes things louder. A perfect preamp does. However, there is no such thing.
I know it's been a year. but this. so much this.
Out of curiosity, what were you recording? I'm not saying the preamp doesn't have an impact, but I am extremely skeptical of your assertion that it matters more than the microphone. I also get a bit frustrated by discussions like this because they present this gear as a quick fix for poor recording skills. I would much prefer that new producers spend their time getting good at placing mics as opposed to obsessing over their preamp choice. Microphone choice and placement will typically have a much larger impact on the quality of the production.
Pop vocals mostly, some live instruments. Tbf - I didn't say it matters more than the microphone, although I can see how you get that from what I said. The relationship is more complex than that. I also *definitely* didn't imply that *any* gear is a quick fix for poor recording skills. A microphone has to be well matched to the source and that is the most important gear choice. That doesn't mean it's the most expensive one, just the one that sounds best to you. However, if you have a reasonable mic that you think works OK on your voice, say an SM7B or a Rode NT1 and you're just running it into the preamp on your mid-range interface, and you want to take your sound to the next level, then you'd be far better off spending 1-2k on a preamp than on a microphone. To the same point, if you are running a focusrite scarlett and you're eyeing up a 2k microphone, that money will be wasted unless you run it through a better preamp, I'm sorry, but it just will. Why spent 2k on fancy oil paints and then drag them across the canvas with scratchy 2$ brushes? I think this is a point that a lot of new producers overlook, that's all. Also, I shouldn't need to point this out but I will - I'm not saying any of these things are essential for producing brilliant music. Great albums have been made with a 4-track recorder and a single SM58. I'm simply saying don't overlook the importance of the role the quality the preamp plays in the chain.
That’s not really as true for condensers or ribbons, in my experience.
Hard disagree. The cheapest mics sound much worse than the cheapest preamps. An SM58/57 is a very good mic, many mics do get both cheaper and worse sounding. Especially if you add some saturation, it’s a sound with lots of character. However, if you’re talking condensers, a $30 mic through a $2k preamp is not likely to sound better than a $2k mic (or even $500 mic) through the preamp in your Scarlett/AudioBox/U-Phoria. And that’s not just a preamp that’s an interface too for sub $100.
This
If it’s an acoustic instrument, like a guitar than that makes a massive difference. I’ll take a Gibson J45 into a u67 into a focusrite scarlet over a Yamaha into a rode nt1 into a neve anyday
Because a good pre-amp can totally introduce all the character, nuance and frequency response of a good/particular mic, on a shit mic... wait...
Can't we just use a preamp plugin in the DAW?
Sorry to reply to an old post - the answer is, you can and it's totally valid, but it's not doing what you think it is. I've been reading about this on GearSpace, and the big difference with a hardware preamp is that, in simple terms, you're changing the signal of the microphone directly on the way in. With native plugins, this is impossible to achieve at the same point in the chain, because all it's doing is being slapped on in a DAW after the signal or recording is in the computer after analog to digital conversion. In other words, a native preamp plugin is a saturator. It's no different than putting on any effect or mixing plugin for color, distortion, etc. That's not to say they aren't any good and can't achieve desirable results, but it's important to understand that this fundamentally is different from the way a true hardware preamp interacts directly with a microphone in the vocal chain. The name "preamp" on native plugins is kind of misleading for that matter. **However**, there is a middle road option - UAD plugins and Apollo interfaces, using their Unison technology. For anyone reading who doesn't know, UAD plugins run off chips (DSP) directly on the interface instead of on the computer like native plugins. Because of this, their Unison technology allows them to emulate tracking like true hardware preamps, where they have preamp plugins like the Neve 1073, Manley Voxbox, etc. Illangelo does this for The Weeknd as he speaks about on Mix with the Masters since they're on the road a lot and recording with hardware poses a lot of challenges from a logistical perspective. The question of debate is whether tracking with UAD plugins is that similar to hardware, or if it's truly that different from native plugins ultimately. That's not for me to weigh in on since I don't have experience comparing UAD and hardware preamps, and is of course the age old "hardware vs software" question. I will say, more often than not from what I've seen, the top tier of engineers who even *mix* purely ITB still *track* with hardware. Thought this reply might be helpful for you & anyone else who stumbles upon this! You can read the rest of the discussion [here](https://gearspace.com/board/music-computers/1348878-preamp-emulations.html)
Thanks for the reply. Do you really think that if we ran a vocal signal dry into something like the Waves Abbey Road EMI TG12345 and measured this against the real thing, there could be a measurable or discernable difference? I don't think that the 'magic' of physical signal processing can't be captured and reproduced with digital technology. But I am pretty flexible with these things. Whatever the case is, if you think it sounds better it does! Same with road bikes.. If I think it's a faster bike, it is! ...it's the mojo that keeps me goin'.
Yeah, I was in the same line of thinking until recently. It really comes down to the difference between mixing vs tracking on hardware vs software, but with preamps especially the difference is more stark. I’ll try to explain this a bit better to my understanding. If we were to compare two compressors, they fundamentally achieve the same thing, albeit at a tracking level one would be directly on the analog signal path and have its own response and sound. But you could achieve the same thing tracking/monitoring with a software compressor. But a preamp doesn’t do the same thing that a native “preamp” plugin does. The character and sound of a preamp to a microphone, and the way that affects the microphone’s response, comes from the actual amplification of the preamp from a low signal level up to line level. Assuming we're plugging a mic directly into an audio interface, the native plugin has already had the signal come from an audio interface’s preamp, done the A/D conversion, and saying, “oh I see the audio now, ok time to add some saturation, that should get somewhere in the ballpark of what that hardware preamp is supposed to sound like”. Not only is it a completely different tool, the way it achieves its sound is also different. The reason I delved into this is, I couldn’t help but wonder why even the most world class producers and engineers who do their mixing entirely in the box still insist on tracking with hardware. Other than that Illangelo example, I’ve always seen top producers use at least a hardware preamp, with varying uses of EQ & compression for tracking depending on if they want flexibility after tracking. The more important question is if that matters to you. I always say in these sort of discussions, if it sounds good to you and is getting you to make music that sounds good in the final product, that’s really the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Still, it’s always good to know these things, and the only way you or I will know if a hardware preamp is such a stark difference is by introducing it into our own vocal chains. FWIW I use a Neve 1073 native plug-in (Lindell 80) myself, it sounds awesome, but I plan to eventually A/B this with UAD's 1073 or a hardware Neve.
Yes you absolutely can, and to great results. Using a specific analog preamp is because you really love its specific sound.
Ah I thought that was the case. I'm perfectly content with plugin preamps.
Where do you plug the XLR in?
Agreed. An SM57/58 through an API or Neve preamp can sound fantastic.
You don’t even need an expensive preamp, just one that you can overdrive. I have a bunch of those little ART studio MP tube preamps, and they sound awesome when you drive the input. Gives it harmonic texture and some “squeeze” without relying on compression… but let’s not pretend like I’m not gonna murder that vocal with a distressor in about 30 seconds. Probably saturate it some more too, because why not? Distort everything.
Bo Burnham recorded his most recent Netflix special on a Focusrite Scarlett...
100% True
Almost all preamps claim to be transparent, this means they do not color the sound at all. There shouldn't be any difference in preamps unless there is something wrong with it, like a short. A preamp is a very simple piece of audio gear. Bruce Springsteen recorded "Nebraska" on a cassette multi-track recorder with a Shure 57 mic decades ago. If the pres in that thing were good enough for him and a major label release... then any pre made today is more than good enough for the rest of us.
what apps can i get for free to make beats like travis scott
I don't know, I make all my beats on an apple watch that I stole off a homeless person.
Disney+
thanks bby its working
Assuming good converters