Do I need an outboard preamp?

[Slandis]

Trying to make some basic lo-fi rock music here. I've been looking at preamp reviews, with little success because I can't actually hear any of them. Then I take a step back and ask a more important queston: do I even need one? I'm of the belief that technique is 90% of the result (in my experience with other crafts, this has always been the case), and I'm not eager to go out and buy sexy new gear unless I can actually justify it.

I'm recording a 30w amp > CAD Trion 6000 condenser or SM57 > Mogami gold 15' XLR > Focusrite Saffire 14 > Reaper. I'm in a tiny untreated college bedroom that has high ceilings, abundant right angles, and the floorplan is pretty square. I'm monitoring everything through some M-Audio BX5a monitors.

I've been playing guitar for a while so I'm pretty good and dialing in a tone (playing the amp, so to speak); the source isn't the issue. Given its reputation I can't blame the SM57 for anything, and I've heard excellent results from the Trion as well. I've been experimenting pretty heavily with mic placement, and even if I get a fitting sound (not necessarily "nice" in its own right), it doesn't stack very well when layered with other instruments. It sounds like a muddy reproduction of a good sound, if that makes sense. This narrows the "weak link" to two areas: interface (preamp and converter) and acoustics/monitoring.

Right now I have to crank the input on my Saffire to 80-90% even when the guitar amp is uncomfortably loud. I've always felt like I struggled to get the signal up to a usable strength. Can this be reasonably chalked up to the characteristically sub-par preamps of a cheap interface, or is there some aspect I'm overlooking here?

I've been looking at preamps in the $500 range: Focusrite ISA one, Goldenage Pre '73, Warm Audio WA12, True Systems P-Solo, and FMR RNPA. All the reviews of them that I hear simply refer to other famous preamps, which is entirely meaningless to me. I know some have a transparent sound while others are known more to color. Considering that I'm recording into a DAW (bright and pristine), would it be a good idea to balance that with a more colored preamp? Or is the coloration so subtle that it wouldn't really make a difference? I'm a big fan of the vintage sound generally (all my stompboxes are warm analogue devices), but would it be off-base for me to think that at a low price point I should strive to maximize clarity (i.e. transparency) and leave the colored stuff to high-end gear?

Again, under professional circumstances I realize that every small aspect will be meticulously scrutinized, but I'm aiming for a more "raw" sound. Think John Frusciante's solo work, Mac DeMarco, Sigur Ros (the opposite of lo-fi I realize, but very moody and dark nonetheless).

[whiteaxxxe]

on Gearslutz I would be killed, torn to pieces, burnt and beheaded for this ...

what about buying a 12 in 4 Behringer Xenyx? 4 mic preamps, and you can use that thing as monitor-system, so it frees up some CPU, in the sense that you can set your latency higher (less CPU load) because you dont need to monitor anything via Reaper.

dont know exactly, costs about $80 give or take. I use a Behringer mixer (older) to my full satisfaction since ten years or so.

if you really want to get into the preamp-digging, you open a can of worms. be warned. 10 people will give you 20 opinions, and when someone starts to discuss "mojo", "coloring", "voodoo" and "vibe", you know you are done and that you should have sticked to Behringer. :-)))))

(hint: if you have a lot of spare time, post your posting here on Gearslutz ... no, dont. that much time and nerves has nobody. :-)))

[G-Sun]

I do not second the Behringer-advice,
as you have the Saffire.

I haven't used either, but I believe the Saffire is ok.

What you can do on net is to listen to sound-comparisons of the Saffire vs. other preamps
like: http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&...76247554,d.bGQ

If you hear a differnce that matters to you, then an upgrade might be worth it. Else not.
Best is to borrow some of the preamps in question and test out for yourself.

Choice of preamp is a matter of taste. Be sure to listen to some sound-demos and shootouts, to see what kind of sounds you like.

Another advice is to buy used gear. Then you can sell it again with little loss.

Good luck!

[G-Sun]

Originally Posted by Slandis

I'm in a tiny untreated college bedroom that has high ceilings, abundant right angles, and the floorplan is pretty square.

BTW: This ^^^^ will affect your recordings far more than choice of preamp.

[serr]

If you are having trouble getting decent signal on a gtr cab with the Focusrite unit, then something else is going wrong.

Even the lowest quality audio interface with an integrated mic preamp channel (eg. Behringer) will still give professional results in that you will be able to get full usable signal without wild distortions.

If you were already getting pro results but looking to improve by another level, then we could have a mic preamp conversation. If you aren't even getting pro results getting the signal in with a Focusrite, then something else is messing with you.

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by G-Sun

What you can do on net is to listen to sound-comparisons of the Saffire vs. other preamps
like: http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&...76247554,d.bGQ

If you hear a differnce that matters to you, then an upgrade might be worth it. Else not.
Best is to borrow some of the preamps in question and test out for yourself.

Choice of preamp is a matter of taste. Be sure to listen to some sound-demos and shootouts, to see what kind of sounds you like.

Another advice is to buy used gear. Then you can sell it again with little loss.

Good luck!

I definitely noticed a big difference in imaging and punch between the ISA One and the Focusrite in that video. Tube Pre sounded shrill in the upper end. The ART Tube had a nice tone but seemed very thin at the same time. But my issue is not just aesthetics, but pragmatic as well: how much of a difference in mic sensitivity does a dedicated preamp make? In a working setting, all other factors being equal (mic placement, etc.), would having an outboard preamp make it so that I have to struggle less to get a strong signal, or will the difference be more tonal than anything?

Buying used is always my preferred method.

Originally Posted by G-Sun

BTW: This ^^^^ will affect your recordings far more than choice of preamp.

I've done a fair amount of experimentation in cab/mic placement in bad rooms, and I feel like I've figured out a passable way to minimize it. I point it towards my closet, which is full of clothes to dampen reflections. The amp itself is tilted back 35 degrees as well. I haven't noticed any phase cancellations or anything weird so far.

Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe

what about buying a 12 in 4 Behringer Xenyx? 4 mic preamps, and you can use that thing as monitor-system, so it frees up some CPU, in the sense that you can set your latency higher (less CPU load) because you dont need to monitor anything via Reaper.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious, but how would a mixer replace a dedicated preamp? I don't have any latency/CPU issues, nor do I have a shortage of I/O.

Originally Posted by serr

If you were already getting pro results but looking to improve by another level, then we could have a mic preamp conversation. If you aren't even getting pro results getting the signal in with a Focusrite, then something else is messing with you.

Here is something I recorded with my old M-Audio Fasttrack Pro. That thing was noisy and the preamps were incredibly weak, so I upgraded to the Saffire.

https://soundcloud.com/slandis/bowsprit

It's not that I can't get a usable signal out of the Saffire; it's that the strength of amplification provided by the preamp just seems kind of weak and tonally it feels somewhat shrill. Based on what I've read, having a dedicated preamp is night in day in terms of microphone sensitivity; sure you an get great results without one, but the ease of capturing the sound through a good preamp (and converters/compressors), from what I've read, makes it worth it.

In other words, I can get good results. I just want to know the most reasonable way to to take my signal chain to the next level (albeit relatively low-end still). I was looking at compressers, listened to sound samples and heard a HUGE difference, but then I thought that maybe I should work on getting a stronger signal first (preamp). I don't really know which part of the puzzle takes the highest priority here. As for room treatment - being in college I can't really make any mods to the house other than hanging posters on the walls with putty. I'll be in a different house in less than a year anyway. Not that I don't realize the HUGE importance of acoustics; I'm just trying to work within the limitations of my living arrangement.

[whiteaxxxe]

Originally Posted by Slandis

Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious, but how would a mixer replace a dedicated preamp? I don't have any latency/CPU issues, nor do I have a shortage of I/O.

because in such a mixer are built in mic-preamps.

[ashcat_lt]

You'll definitely get more improvement putting that $500 into acoustic treatment rather than an outboard preamp. I understand that you can't do anything permanent, but even a couple gobos would probably help. There is just plain nothing wrong with the pres in the Saffire in general. It's extremely cheap and easy to make a damn good clean and flat preamp nowadays. The expensive ones might have slightly better noise specs, might sound better when pushed to distortion, or might have some pleasing quirks to their frequency response, but if you just want gain, most budget pres do the job fine.

Exactly what sort of levels are you shooting for in the DAW? You shouldn't have to get anywhere near 0dbfs to have something usable. Turn it up after it's recorded. Especially with guitar, the small increase in noise floor from recording lower levels will be swamped by the noise from the source.

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

You'll definitely get more improvement putting that $500 into acoustic treatment rather than an outboard preamp. I understand that you can't do anything permanent, but even a couple gobos would probably help. There is just plain nothing wrong with the pres in the Saffire in general. It's extremely cheap and easy to make a damn good clean and flat preamp nowadays. The expensive ones might have slightly better noise specs, might sound better when pushed to distortion, or might have some pleasing quirks to their frequency response, but if you just want gain, most budget pres do the job fine.

Exactly what sort of levels are you shooting for in the DAW? You shouldn't have to get anywhere near 0dbfs to have something usable. Turn it up after it's recorded. Especially with guitar, the small increase in noise floor from recording lower levels will be swamped by the noise from the source.

Good to hear. I'm just trying to sweeten up the sound I guess. Maybe a compressor would be more beneficial then?

About the Gobos - my room is tiny. I don't even have enough room to lie down straight on the floor anywhere. Based on images of room treatment I've seen, barring having any floorspace whatsoever, I don't see how I could go about doing it without mounting stuff on the walls. Although I have played with the idea of using adhesive hooks on the ceiling and hanging a moving blanket. I also have access to treated rooms at my school, so if need be I can set up my gear there for tracking. In which case the issue still stands: which part of the chain to upgrade...

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by Slandis

...which part of the chain to upgrade...

Monitoring and room treatment. Seriously. As long as you are happy with the sound of the guitar coming out of the amp, you've got everything you need for better than acceptable results. The room will affect the sound that the mic catches, but it is just as important that you be able to hear what you've actually recorded as neutral as possible so that you can make good judgements on how it is actually working in your mix.

I personally would not bother with a hardware compressor if you're recording to DAW. Maybe a comp pedal before the amp to get the sort of thing that will give you, but that is quite different from what you get compressing the mic signal after the amp. For compressing after the amp, use plugins. This is something I've gotten away from, though. It'll get squished sometimes with a "guitar bus" compressor, and definitely on the main 2-bus, but not too often on a track-by-track basis. Overdrive/distorted guitars don't usually need it.

Can you answer the question about the levels you're looking for? Like, in actual numbers?

[DVDdoug]

The difference between any two good preamps is going to be subtle-subtle-subtle, especially if the preamp isn't overdriven.

Some pros will "push" a preamp slightly, but it's unusual (these days) to overdrive the heck out of a preamp the way you might overdrive your guitar amp. (If you do way-overdrive your preamp, there will be bigger differences between preamps.)

Changing preamps is way down on the list of things that affect sound. You'll get bigger changes with a different mic, different mic positioning, different room acoustics, a different pickup, guitar, or amp, or even by adjusting the tone control on your guitar!

I get a fitting sound (not necessarily "nice" in its own right), it doesn't stack very well when layered with other instruments. It sounds like a muddy reproduction of a good sound, if that makes sense.

That's pretty common for an instrument to sound different (better or worse) when soloed, than when mixed.

If you are not doing this already, try filtering-out the low bass from the guitar. Filter the bass out everything else too, except the bass & kick drum. I think the cut-off is usually around 180Hz, so the only thing below 180 would be the bass & kick.

Otherwise, it's probably a matter of compression on the individual tracks as well as on the final mix. And, maybe some EQ on the individual tracks to "bring out" the various instruments. But, try compressing and EQing the individual tracks while listening to the full-mix.

This narrows the "weak link" to two areas: interface (preamp and converter) and acoustics/monitoring.

Again don't worry about the preamp & ADC (as long as you are not using the mic preamp built into a regular consumer soundcard. )

Acoustics can be a problem, especially in the bass. But, assuming there is other bass in the mix, filtering-out the low-bass from your guitar will eliminate problems with bass-acoustics.

Monitoring could be an issue for you too. Since you don't have a "perfect" studio the trick is to check your mix on everything you can get your hands on... Headphones, ear buds, your car stereo, your boom-box, etc.

Also, choose a known-good commercial release in the same genre and use that as a reference. Compare the reference recording to your mix on your studio monitors, and on at least some of the other systems you are checking your mix on.

Pros use both of these techniques, but since they have good monitors in good rooms and lots of experience, it takes a lot less back-and-forth to get a mix that sounds as good as possible on all of these various setups.

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

I personally would not bother with a hardware compressor if you're recording to DAW. Maybe a comp pedal before the amp to get the sort of thing that will give you, but that is quite different from what you get compressing the mic signal after the amp. For compressing after the amp, use plugins.

Interesting. I had been told that something like an FMR compressor would smoke even the nicest plug-ins, though I realize not everyone will agree with this. Even if that's not true, I don't jive well with plug-ins. For some reason hardware inhibits my creative process much less than gazing into a GUI.

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

Can you answer the question about the levels you're looking for? Like, in actual numbers?

-18dBfs. Why do you ask?

[Wolffman]

I just checked out the specs for the saffire 14 and i can't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to get great results with that interface.
A friend of mine has a saffire 40 and he makes damn good recordings.

The mic pres have +13 to +60 db of gain so you should have no trouble getting good recording levels and if you are there is a problem somewhere else in the chain.
What level are you recording at, atm ?
A commonly accepted recording level to aim for is in the -18 > -12 rms vacinity, the level will vary depending on what instrument you are recording
while keeping peak level well under 0dbfs being the most important !!

I would suggest if you hvae access to a good treated room in your school to take your equipment into that room and make some recordings there, and compare them to ones you've done in your room.
That should reveal any problems if any associated with your recording space.

But in reality if your just close micing your amp with an sm57 your room isn't really going to be a big part of the recorded sound.


Cheers

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by DVDdoug

That's pretty common for an instrument to sound different (better or worse) when soloed, than when mixed.

If you are not doing this already, try filtering-out the low bass from the guitar. Filter the bass out everything else too, except the bass & kick drum. I think the cut-off is usually around 180Hz, so the only thing below 180 would be the bass & kick.

Otherwise, it's probably a matter of compression on the individual tracks as well as on the final mix. And, maybe some EQ on the individual tracks to "bring out" the various instruments. But, try compressing and EQing the individual tracks while listening to the full-mix.

It was my understanding that a guitar tone that sounds good by itself does not necessarily sit well in the mix. Hence, I place the mic and control the transients using the amp/guitar EQ to serve the mix. The "mushy" sound I'm describing isn't competing frequencies in the mix. If I have just a solo track of a guitar, and I set the amp/play with a pleasing solo tone, once it gets into the DAW it lacks clarity no matter how I position the mic. I can alter the transients, warmth, and compressed with mic placement, but I can't hear the nuances and idiosyncrasies that my ears hear (or even my iPhone recording app). It's like a low-resolution photograph of beautiful lighting.

Originally Posted by Wolffman

But in reality if your just close micing your amp with an sm57 your room isn't really going to be a big part of the recorded sound.

This is exactly what I do when tracking overdriven parts. For clean parts I use a large-diaphram condenser.

In the meantime, I am looking at these blankets which I have heard good things about: http://www.vocalboothtogo.com/acoust...-21#ja-pathway

Granted they won't replace professional treatment, but considering that the only place in the room my desk (monitors) will fit is shoved in the corners, I think my current acoustic predicament is a matter of making do given that my room sucks :/

Let's assume that tracking at -18dBfs (RME) is no easier from the Saffire than a nicer outboard preamp. Is there not something to be said about the character and richness to be gained from the nicer preamp? I've listened to comparisons of mic'd guitars in untreated, apparently reflective rooms, and the outboard preamps (compared to the interface ones) were markedly nicer. I'm sure that the acoustic quirks and hurdles of the untreated room remained, but the translation of sound was noticeably more "3D." The response seemed less linear; the high-end rolloff was smoother and less harsh, and the overall sound had more punch and clarity. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.

[ronmac]

If I were faced with the space and budget challenges you have I would be investing in a good amp sim, such as Amplitube or Scuffham.

I have a well treated studio space, a stable of nice amps, excellent mic collection, variety of preamps and I often forgo all of the setup time and simply plug in to my interface direct and record with a sim. They may not appeal to you, but there is no denying that sims are quite capable of doing the job.

[ivansc]

Instead of the $44 blankets, why not get $5 duvets (comforters) from your local thrift shop?
If you get a dryer stand & some clothes pins, you can have a temporary reduction in room reflections any time you want.

Oh and you sound like you need to re-read the instructions on setting up gain on your focusrite - if you arent getting a loud enough signal you have something set wrong.

[Judders]

If the sound in your room sucks, record somewhere else. Experimenting with rooms and mic placement will change your guitar sound a million times more than futzing around with outboard pre's.

You seem desperate to spend money on something. If I were you I'd invest in microphones. I just don't see having a smorgasbord of outboard pre's as a worthwhile investment at all.

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by ronmac

If I were faced with the space and budget challenges you have I would be investing in a good amp sim, such as Amplitube or Scuffham.

Having tried amp sims, I get way better results micing in my bad room. They tend to favor distortion/overdrive sounds that aren't particularly to my liking, either.

Originally Posted by ivansc

Instead of the $44 blankets, why not get $5 duvets (comforters) from your local thrift shop?
If you get a dryer stand & some clothes pins, you can have a temporary reduction in room reflections any time you want.

Oh and you sound like you need to re-read the instructions on setting up gain on your focusrite - if you arent getting a loud enough signal you have something set wrong.

I am getting a loud enough signal, it just feels that having to set it above 60% to track at -18dBfs is a bit excessive (or is it?).

Would a comforter absorb sound as effectively as a blanket that is designed specifically to do so?

Originally Posted by Judders

You seem desperate to spend money on something. If I were you I'd invest in microphones. I just don't see having a smorgasbord of outboard pre's as a worthwhile investment at all.

How would more microphones (even though I'm perfectly happy with the ones I have) be any more of an investment than an outboard preamp? I would need an outboard preamp eventually, even if I don't need one right now. I'm not talking about a smorgasbord of pres, I am asking how big of a difference there will be between a cheap built-in preamp and ONE dedicated external one.

Considering that I'm on a tight budget, I'd rather not spend money where I don't have to. It seems a preamp isn't going to help (which is surprising since most people tell me they make a huge difference as long as you can dodge the acoustic imperfections in a given untreated room), which is good news. The extent that I could treat the room without sacrificing my damage deposit (in all, more money on the line than the cost of a preamp) is minimal; I'm thinking of stringing a rope line across the room using adhesive hooks and draping a thick blanket over it to dampen reflections.

Originally Posted by TexasFury

Have you eliminated failure of the other parts of the signal path? Tried a different cable? Used a different interface? The Saffire manual mentions a low/high gain setting in the internal software mixer, can this be applied to the mic input? What about recording the guitar direct? How is the signal there? A few things you haven't eliminated before blaming the interface itself.

I was having much worse signal problems earlier, so I bought a new cable and that solved them. Mics and interface seem to be working as they should; I haven't noticed any problems with any part of the chain so far.

[serr]

Originally Posted by Slandis

I am getting a loud enough signal, it just feels that having to set it above 60% to track at -18dBfs is a bit excessive (or is it?).

You don't turn a corner in your car by setting the steering wheel at X position. You just turn the thing and adjust as you go.
Doesn't matter where the knob ends up. It's the signal you're after. If the knob has the range to get you there, you're good.

Originally Posted by Slandis

Considering that I'm on a tight budget, I'd rather not spend money where I don't have to. It seems a preamp isn't going to help (which is surprising since most people tell me they make a huge difference

Preamps DO make a big difference when you compare cheap to pro! But you already have pro quality preamps. In fact, that interface with it's integrated mic preamps is the highest quality piece of gear you own right now! That's why everyone is pointing you towards other things.

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by serr

You don't turn a corner in your car by setting the steering wheel at X position. You just turn the thing and adjust as you go.
Doesn't matter where the knob ends up. It's the signal you're after. If the knob has the range to get you there, you're good.

That's actually a great explanation. In that case, the sensitivity of my preamps isn't an issue. But there's also the issue of the musicality of it all.

An example that comes to mind is photography. I've been doing this for over 10 years as a job so I'm pretty well versed on the technology side of it all (and how little it actually matters compared to technique). Still I see a lot of arguments that quote specs (either in favor of or against superfluous purchases) along the lines of "with modern technology all sensors should be clean enough to get good images no matter how cheap the camera is" or "the quality of the image is the sum of its parts; top notch glass into a top notch sensor will give top notch imaging." That is technically correct, but it only addresses one part of the mission. The goal isn't to get the most technically perfect photo - it's to get the most emotive or "musical" one. I've used top of the line cameras that boast the largest dynamic range, with optically perfect lenses, and people give me weird looks when I opt for a cheap vintage lens full of imperfections. Why? Because perfection is a form of imperfection. The technically superior glass felt sterile and seemed to be striving or something completely unrelated to art.

I keep hearing advice like "use an amp sim" or "the noise floor on what you have is sufficient." That advice is perfectly valid and I appreciate knowing that I have the adequate means to translate sound waves into ones and zeros, but I feel like they aren't exactly a satisfactory answer. I was hoping for more of a discussion rather than an answer.

Originally Posted by serr

Preamps DO make a big difference when you compare cheap to pro! But you already have pro quality preamps. In fact, that interface with it's integrated mic preamps is the highest quality piece of gear you own right now! That's why everyone is pointing you towards other things.

I was under the impression that integrated preamps in an interface this cheap could be mediocre at best. Pretty much every resource I can find online (e.g. Tweakheadz) tells me that a dedicated outboard preamp of a certain class (FMR RNP, P-Solo, etc.) will always make a huge difference in the definition of the sound, provided that everything up to that point in the signal is good (especially playing/mic technique).

I've read numerous testaments that going from an M-Audio pre to a good dedicated pre was like hearing their dynamic mic in high definition. Based on the sound samples I've heard, it makes a huge difference.

It's not that I have GAS, it's that most of what I'm hearing here is contrary to what I've found everywhere else I've researched. I know there's a tendency for GAS on such matters, and I'd like to avoid buying things as much as the next guy, but every sound sample I've heard tells me that it makes a huge difference. And if I'm micing a dynamic hot against the grill of the amp, how much is the room going to interfere really?

I should note that I was unhappy with my sound starting a couple years ago. Not one to buy the problem away, I instead spent those years practicing mic'ing, positioning, and technique. I've upgraded to a good XLR (huge difference there), studied mixing/tracking theory, etc. I feel like I've put a fair amount of time into avoiding superfluous gear purchases as much as possible, but now I can't think of anything else to do that would add clarity to the signal. Again, I realize how important (and materialistically unappealing) room acoustics are, but as I've already mentioned that I can't drill into the walls, and there's no place to put my monitors except shoved into the corner. In the meantime I'm going to hang a moving blanket and see how much that affects the signal. I'm also using an SM57 hot against the amp most of the time, so I wonder how much the room will actually bleed into the mic.

[Judders]

The kind of preamp you'd need for it to make an appreciable difference, without buying a LFAC, would be something like an API lunchbox, which will around $1000 per channel, not including the rack.

Or you could save up for a top-quality audio interface.

Have you tried mic'ing your amp with the 57 and your condenser?

[G-Sun]

Originally Posted by G-Sun

What you can do on net is to listen to sound-comparisons of the Saffire vs. other preamps
like: http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&...76247554,d.bGQ

Listening to this myself.
The Saffire is really ok. I wouldn't mind using it.
Need more gain? Get a Cloudlifter or Fethead.
But you should be ok for anything but ribbons and a sm7b and very quiet sources.

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by Judders

The kind of preamp you'd need for it to make an appreciable difference, without buying a LFAC, would be something like an API lunchbox, which will around $1000 per channel, not including the rack.

Or you could save up for a top-quality audio interface.

Have you tried mic'ing your amp with the 57 and your condenser?

I realize that just going out and buying any <$1,000 outboard preamp won't do much, if anything. Having said that, I have heard of a couple preamps that are hailed as "$1,000 quality" at half the price. The two I've been looking at are the True Systems P-Solo and FMR RNP, the reviews of which are filled with people saying they were a massive step up from their low-end system. Beyond those two, it seems, I wouldn't even bother upgrading unless I was about to drop some serious dough.

I have experimented with dual micing. I did SM57 against the grill and condenser micing the back of the amp with great results (blending them to where they sound the ugliest, then flipping the phase on the rear mic at that point and it really opens up the sound). I also tried the Led Zeppelin thing and put my condenser in the hallway while the 57 was hot against the amp. That had a really nice and subtle "raw" sound to it as well.

I've also played with the angle of the mic to alter compression and warmth to suit the mix accordingly.

The primary reason why I suspected a preamp upgrade is because despite heavy tinkering with mic placement, which I'm fairly comfortable with by now, one thing seems uniform. It's as if everything goes through the same "filter" before going into my computer, and that filter sounds kind of flat or lacks definition (I have tried monitoring in an ideal acoustic environment as well). I've checked my recording settings and nothing seems to alleviate it. I know every part of the chain colors the signal, which is why I suspected that the next part of the chain (preamp) could be the culprit. I know that it's capable of tracking at the right level, but I'm talking about the characteristic of that sound as well.

[ashcat_lt]

Frankly, if you've got the money just sitting around, you might as well give it a shot. But something from a reputable dealer with a decent return policy and work with it for a little while. Try to be as fair and honest as you can and just see if it actually helps enough to be worth the investment. If not, send it back for a refund. If so, come back and tell us how full of shit we all are.

One thing I'd mention is that some times guitars want to be low passed. The pickup itself usually won't pass much of anything above 5K-8K or so, and we really don't want to hear that anyway, and especially not the distortion harmonics above that, so our cabinets are usually tuned to roll off sometimes even lower than 5K. Anything you record in the range that we can actually call treble is mostly going to be fizz and splatter from the room. It's almost counterintuitive, but sometimes low passing that crap out can really help to add focus and definition to a guitar sound. I know it's preferable to actually record the sound you want and not plan to fix it in the mix, but when you're stuck... Heck, you might try putting a blanket over the mic itself. It might be a decent "analog" solution.

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

Frankly, if you've got the money just sitting around, you might as well give it a shot. But something from a reputable dealer with a decent return policy and work with it for a little while. Try to be as fair and honest as you can and just see if it actually helps enough to be worth the investment. If not, send it back for a refund. If so, come back and tell us how full of shit we all are.

One thing I'd mention is that some times guitars want to be low passed. The pickup itself usually won't pass much of anything above 5K-8K or so, and we really don't want to hear that anyway, and especially not the distortion harmonics above that, so our cabinets are usually tuned to roll off sometimes even lower than 5K. Anything you record in the range that we can actually call treble is mostly going to be fizz and splatter from the room. It's almost counterintuitive, but sometimes low passing that crap out can really help to add focus and definition to a guitar sound. I know it's preferable to actually record the sound you want and not plan to fix it in the mix, but when you're stuck... Heck, you might try putting a blanket over the mic itself. It might be a decent "analog" solution.

From what I understand, the more crowded your mix, the narrower "range" you want your guitar to sit in, correct? I recently downloaded the master tracks from some Red Hot Chili Peppers albums; Frusciante's sound has always been a huge inspiration of mine. When I solo'd the guitar on Under the Bridge, I was amazed at what I heard. Contrary to my gestalt perception of it all these years (clean, punchy, full), the guitar itself was trebly and overdriven. It sounded both thin and in your face. Based on my (basic) understanding of mixing, this makes sense.

On the other hand, lets say you're recording an acoustic guitar with no backing instruments. Wouldn't that philosophy of "thinning it out" not hold since the guitar has the entire frequency range to itself? In this scenario, you wouldn't want a compressed, stripped sound to fits with a bass/drums/synth/bagpipe because those instruments aren't there. You'd want a full bodied tone that spans more space, right? Granted, I realize this is often achieved with multiple mics on multiple tracks, but still...

The style of music that I'm doing falls into the latter camp. I'll have drums and bass on occasion but it's mostly just a guitar and some minimal accompaniment.

[serr]

Originally Posted by Judders

The kind of preamp you'd need for it to make an appreciable difference, without buying a LFAC, would be something like an API lunchbox, which will around $1000 per channel, not including the rack.

Or you could save up for a top-quality audio interface.

Have you tried mic'ing your amp with the 57 and your condenser?

This right here. ^^^

I was about to suggest a different mic approach too.

Put up a condenser a foot or 2 in front of the amp in addition to the dynamic up close. You can fuss over positioning between the 2 to get an acceptable phase relationship between them or be lazy like me and just nudge the further back condenser track into perfect phase alignment after the fact in Reaper.

Add a 3rd track that is a DI from the guitar. This gives you the option to pull up an amp sim to blend with the mics (or change your mind and go a different direction with the sound).

Do all that and you WILL have guitar tracks that you can make sound right.

[clepsydrae]

I can't believe how good the advice in this thread is: just sober, wise, balanced info. Way to go, forum. :-) I can't even find a nit to quibble with. :-)

I too think that a pre is not where your solution likely lies, but as ashcat said, no harm in trying it (for science) from a vendor with a generous return policy.

But I think you should post a few things for us:

- specific links/examples where you have heard a preamp demonstration that makes you think that an outboard preamp would be a big change from your own -- you've referred to a few, can you post the links so we can hear what you're hearing? It's hard to have the discussion you seek when it's all just adjectives.

- examples of the tone you are unsatisfied with, as well as comparisons (e.g. "here's one that sounds gauzy, here's one that's not as bad but it's still there, will a preamp make as much a difference as that"...)

I also recommend that you throw any and all audio samples into this: http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx

...so that you know what you're really hearing.

I recommend the blind ABX'ing not to say that I don't trust what you're reporting to us, but to say that you shouldn't trust what you report to yourself unless it's tested blind, especially in the context of subtle things like which preamp you prefer. Confirmation bias is notorious in audio.

Originally Posted by Slandis

Pretty much every resource I can find online (e.g. Tweakheadz) tells me that a dedicated outboard preamp of a certain class (FMR RNP, P-Solo, etc.) will always make a huge difference in the definition of the sound, provided that everything up to that point in the signal is good (especially playing/mic technique).

I'd recommend a hefty grain of salt. I'd be surprised (not shocked or stunned, but mildly surprised) if you (or almost anyone) could discriminate better than chance between a higher-end "clean" preamp and your current interface, much less prefer one over the other, much less notice a "huge" difference.

A higher-end "colored" preamp would be a different story I assume (I have no real experience in that realm.)

Based on the sound samples I've heard, it makes a huge difference.

Please link...

And if I'm micing a dynamic hot against the grill of the amp, how much is the room going to interfere really?

The issue isn't how hot the signal is to the mic from the source, it's how hot the direct signal to the mic is in proportion to the reflections of that sound in the room. So, getting the mic closer to the amp increases the direct-vs-room proportion, but the overall volume of the amp does not.

As a bedroom recorder myself I've recorded in little spaces with some success, but it's hard to negate the effects of the room entirely, especially if you're talking about negating them below the level of difference a preamp would make.

My instinct re: room treatment would be that bass- and low-mid-related treatment (e.g. corner traps, no attachment hardware needed!, and related type traps) as opposed to the packing blankets (which would only damp higher frequencies). Do others here share that notion?

Another note is that 57s are known for a significant variation from mic to mic... in your experimentation have you swapped out for another?

Besides a different 57 (or other mics/techniques in general) I think your idea of tracking in an entirely different room (shape/size/wall covering, and change mic technique around a few times, etc) is the key experiment you should do.

[Slandis]

I like the idea of treating the source (i.e. the room); after all, crap in, crap out. However my concern with that is 1. damaging the walls 2. cost 3. space. Aren't bass traps wooden panels that cut the corners of the room? If I cut the corners of my room with any object, I won't be able to fit my desk inside, or open my door...

Here's two sound samples. Both recorded with the Trion 6000 condenser. The first one is untouched, and the second one I've panned and doubled tracks, as well as added some EQ and compression. Ignore it being horribly out of tune; I'm missing a string and strats get all wonky without the proper tension its intonated for (floating bridge).
https://soundcloud.com/slandis/focusrite-raw
https://soundcloud.com/slandis/focusrite-eqd

The best way for me to describe what I'm hearing is like being an electric guitarist who typically plays a vintage Marshall plugging into an acoustic amp for the first time. It's transparent or flat and (to me) lacks personality. It feels sterile. The Focusrite preamps are fine for what they are: amplifying the mic signal with as little coloration as possible (I misattributed the sonic characteristics to a weak signal; turns out this is just what a transparent preamp sounds like). For certain sounds I love this, but for electric guitar (my main instrument) I'm not a big fan. So yes, I absolutely want something that adds color, and am not just looking for a "nicer" preamp that does the same thing (at which point, by definition, the only difference between transparent preamps should be things like noise floor which hasn't been a problem for me at all). That rules out something similar like the Focusrite ISA One; right now I'm looking at the Warm WA12 and the GAP 73.

Never heard of that ABX thing before. I'll have to give that a try.

The closest online examples I could find between the WA12 and a transparent preamp is here:
http://www.everythingrecording.com/w...e-audio-files/
The difference is monumental to my ears. The WA12 feels less linear, with more punch and a softer knee without sacrificing any highs. The Millennia is clinically good, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but that transparent feel isn't what I'm after. Comparing the "warm" preamps to the transparent one, the difference between them is precisely my qualm that I'm describing with my current preamp.

[G-Sun]

Well, buy the wa12
I guess you'll have no regrets

[clepsydrae]

Originally Posted by Slandis

my concern with that is 1. damaging the walls

It's not hard to come up with clever ways to get panels on the wall that don't involve penetrating the walls, but sure.

2. cost

Yes. But DIY absorption, especially in a small room, is going to be cheaper than a nice preamp.

3. space. Aren't bass traps wooden panels that cut the corners of the room? If I cut the corners of my room with any object, I won't be able to fit my desk inside, or open my door...

I'm in the same boat -- I record in a small-ish room and have no free corners, so I just deal with like a 10dB monster peak at like 40-something Hz (among many other peaks and valleys). But note: the most effective bass trap is in a 3-way corner, but you can also use a "two-way corner" (meaning the edge between two walls meeting). And you can put these traps up high and they are just as effective, so the corners above you may be the first place to look. Most DIY bass traps are basically triangular pieces of thick OC-703 (or whatever) stacked in a pile and wrapped in burlap. Light, easy to hang/mount/stand-up in a corner somewhere. (Not that I hear anything in your recording that convinces me one way or the other that it's worth doing for your sound -- i'm not qualified to make that call anyway.)

Regarding the sound samples: the differences in the pre's you linked to are what I would personally describe as microscopic, easily achieved with .5dB of eq here or there, and not worth spending $5 on, but if you hear them as monumental, then by all means give it a go, especially with a generous return policy. I agree with the reviewer in the link you sent re: the WA-12 vs the Millennia for electric guitars: "I can hear just a slight boost in the 8-10Khz in the Millennia but it’s just barely noticeable. All in all I say they all sounded very close on that comparison." (Note also that the examples provided were of different performances of the same material; I don't think that makes the tests worthless, but it certainly lowers their quality, especially when comparing small differences.)

It would seem to me that the tiniest variation in mic'ing position/technique, playing style, changing strings on the guitar, tweaking the amp, etc, is going to make 100 times the difference, and is where you should spend your energies, and where the most opportunities for improvement of the sound lie. But if you do get the pre, do report back and tell us how it went.

Or grab a soldering iron and build one of these: http://lacinato.com/cm/index.php/audio/robertsmod

:-)

[Slandis]

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

It's not hard to come up with clever ways to get panels on the wall that don't involve penetrating the walls, but sure.

What I was implying was that bass traps look heavy - too heavy to hang with adhesive hooks. When I search "bass traps" I get a whole variety of results - is there a name for the type I should be looking for specifically if I want something lightweight and easily wall mountable with adhesives/velcro/whatever? I love the DIY route (if it gets results).

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

(Not that I hear anything in your recording that convinces me one way or the other that it's worth doing for your sound -- i'm not qualified to make that call anyway.)

By this do you mean that adding bass traps is not always an improvement to every small room? That bass traps might be a solution?

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

Regarding the sound samples: the differences in the pre's you linked to are what I would personally describe as microscopic, easily achieved with .5dB of eq here or there, and not worth spending $5 on, but if you hear them as monumental, then by all means give it a go, especially with a generous return policy. I agree with the reviewer in the link you sent re: the WA-12 vs the Millennia for electric guitars: "I can hear just a slight boost in the 8-10Khz in the Millennia but it’s just barely noticeable. All in all I say they all sounded very close on that comparison." (Note also that the examples provided were of different performances of the same material; I don't think that makes the tests worthless, but it certainly lowers their quality, especially when comparing small differences.)

I'm also assuming that the Millennia is in a whole other league than my built-in low end Focusrite preamps (though being transparent, I'm not sure that has any effect on the timbre of the two). Granted I am not yet skilled in the art of compression and EQ, but even when I do a visual EQ to compensate for the spikes/bump frequencies (as well as an overall high pass so it sits in the mix), along with a conservative compression to tame the transients, it still sounds very "2D". I have tried a few things to open up the sound: panning a dry track to one side, and panning a highly effected track to the other, and blended the levels to taste. I also have tried back-micing the amp to complement the front mic (using that weird phase inversion trick to find the ugly spot then flipping it to find the sweet spot). These helped a lot, but despite that the recordings all have that uniform "flatness" to them. It might not be the pre, but then what could it be?

From what I've read and been personally told by producers, one philosophy is that relying on "fixing it in the mix" as part of your fundamental sound is a terrible practice. Not to say you can't get away with it (and I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in many circumstances), but if there's anything I've learned in my 10+ years of doing videography, it's that just because you can get away with something is never a justification for doing it. It's like how some guys don't like the treble spike in their bridge pickup, so they put an EQ pedal permanently in their pedal chain. It might technically work, but personally I facepalm at the fact that they don't just switch to a smoother pickup (or reroute the tone knob on the guitar). Get it right at the source and you won't have to patch anything up (now there's an argument for acoustic treatment if I've ever heard one). What are your thoughts on that philosophy?

Originally Posted by clepsydrae

It would seem to me that the tiniest variation in mic'ing position/technique, playing style, changing strings on the guitar, tweaking the amp, etc, is going to make 100 times the difference, and is where you should spend your energies, and where the most opportunities for improvement of the sound lie. But if you do get the pre, do report back and tell us how it went.

I have had great results by adjusting the amp/playing transients/etc. in a way that caters to the mix, rather than sounding good by itself. I have also had success with playing more minimally to let the notes breathe, rather than going full strum like I would when just jamming. It's hard to explain; this really cleaned up the mix and made things have bigger impact, but at the same time that tonal "flatness" was still there, which is why I originally suspected the problem had something to do with the signal chain.

I am considering buying a preamp from a place with a generous return policy, or emailing the owner of Warm Audio to ask if he has a demo I could borrow (I've heard nothing but good things about their customer service). Still, I would prefer to not spend $500 so if I do an ABX test and can't justify the spread in sound quality for the price, then I'll be thrilled to send it back. On the other hand, if I buy or build acoustic treatment, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's going to get thrown away in the next year due to space limitations when moving. A preamp could easily pack...

[jpanderson80]

Originally Posted by Slandis

Trying to make some basic lo-fi rock music here. I've been looking at preamp reviews, with little success because I can't actually hear any of them. Then I take a step back and ask a more important queston: do I even need one? I'm of the belief that technique is 90% of the result (in my experience with other crafts, this has always been the case), and I'm not eager to go out and buy sexy new gear unless I can actually justify it.

I'm recording a 30w amp > CAD Trion 6000 condenser or SM57 > Mogami gold 15' XLR > Focusrite Saffire 14 > Reaper. I'm in a tiny untreated college bedroom that has high ceilings, abundant right angles, and the floorplan is pretty square. I'm monitoring everything through some M-Audio BX5a monitors.

To answer your question: No, you don't need another preamp. I agree with others... Saffire preamps are plenty good to handle what you're doing. I know because I've got some. In fact, I've recorded with dynamic and ribbon mics with those preamps. Yes, the preamp gain does have to be turned up, but that's ok. There's nothing wrong with that.

From your later posts, it seems that you have it in your mind that spending the money will get you a better result. As others have said, I would like to encourage you to spend more time working hard at getting your sounds captured well. New gear is great, but with the gear you have, you can capture great results. You're correct in saying that technique is pivotal. Moving the mic 1" has the potential to have more impact on your sound than getting a new preamp. Dig in.

[reapercurious]

no you dont need another preamp if you have a focusrite already.

as long as your room tone doesnt bother you (the natural room reverb)

if so, just put some blankets on the big flat parts of your room.

then use reacomp on your vocals in the mixing stage, to reduce the super loud parts that arent supposed to be.

[clepsydrae]

Originally Posted by Slandis

What I was implying was that bass traps look heavy - too heavy to hang with adhesive hooks. When I search "bass traps" I get a whole variety of results - is there a name for the type I should be looking for specifically if I want something lightweight and easily wall mountable with adhesives/velcro/whatever? I love the DIY route (if it gets results).

Oh, right, there are certainly a million varieties. I was talking about something along these lines: http://audiodork.com/2011/09/20/building-bass-traps/

...basically just fiberglass and some cloth, so, very light. For panels (rather than corner traps) you can build a light wooden frame around them for durability and aesthetics. No heavier than a picture frame, really. Or skip the frame altogether. Here is one of many pages on the subject: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...-on-the-cheap/

By this do you mean that adding bass traps is not always an improvement to every small room? That bass traps might be a solution?

I don't have the experience to really expound on this, but my impression from about a million sources is that rather than doing a bunch of sophisticated spectral analysis of a room and trying to fine tune it just so, it is almost always beneficial when dealing with small rooms to just slather a bunch of low-end absorption up. Namely, bass traps in the corners and panel absorbers on any reflective walls. The idea being to just neutralize the sound of the room as much as possible rather than trying to work with it, because it's not going to sound good.

The motivation is that your monitoring will be much better as a result, and that recordings will be cleaner -- the tradeoff is that they won't be very live sounding because you're basically turning your little room into a dead studio vocal booth on the theory that the reflections and flutters and blurring and everything aren't ever going to be what you're looking for in your live-room sound (in a bedroom.)

(So what I meant by my comment is that given what you've described is your goal with the guitar sound, I doubt some bass traps are going to do much, since it doesn't sound like the issues you're hearing are in the lows or low-mids anyway. And if you can't take them with when you leave, then the incentive goes down further. But they could help clean up the room and maybe that's just the ticket. Maybe panels on the walls would be more relevant to your issue.)

But monitoring is uncontroversially crucial when it comes to recording audio -- all the experimenting you do, all the tweaking, all the careful decisions and subtle adjustments and shading of this and that... all of that energy is basically wasted if you're in some whacked-out room. You end up having to repeat all the same experiments in the next room because suddenly none of the rules apply anymore. The value of a "neutral" room is that mixing decisions have a better chance of translating to other playback systems because you're effectively working from the centered average of all the whacked-out playback environments. edit: I think I'm overstating a little here -- experiments are still really valuable to do, and things do translate. Life is just easier with a more neutral room.

even when I do a visual EQ to compensate for the spikes/bump frequencies (as well as an overall high pass so it sits in the mix), along with a conservative compression to tame the transients, it still sounds very "2D". I have tried a few things to open up the sound: panning a dry track to one side, and panning a highly effected track to the other, and blended the levels to taste. I also have tried back-micing the amp to complement the front mic (using that weird phase inversion trick to find the ugly spot then flipping it to find the sweet spot). These helped a lot, but despite that the recordings all have that uniform "flatness" to them. It might not be the pre, but then what could it be?

It's hard to say, but my money is that what you're up against is the hard truth that recording lush, "3D", awesome audio is really hard. :-) I think the experimentation you describe is great, and that you should just keep trying things and listening critically. Maybe you'll get a preamp and say "yes -- that's the dimensionality i was hoping for", but I'd be surprised.

If you post a few raw tracks of your electric guitar recordings and say "what's the best stuff I can try to make this more X..." or "what do you hear wrong with this recording if I seek X..." you'll probably get a lot of good advice from folks in these forums.

From what I've read and been personally told by producers, one philosophy is that relying on "fixing it in the mix" as part of your fundamental sound is a terrible practice. ... What are your thoughts on that philosophy?

I'm in agreement. I think the point is that as far as your signal chain is concerned, you're already getting a great signal on the way in, and that maybe you should look even earlier in the chain than that, to the room, the guitar, the amp, etc.

Reminds me of a story a friend told me: he had an office or studio or something in the same building that Santana (who he worshiped) had a studio in, and they were casually friendly in the hallway or whatever. One day they were chatting and Santana's guitar was leaning against the wall and he asked him if he would mind if he played it for a sec. Santana said "sure" and so he picked it up, (maybe he was trembling), thinking "holy shit, Santana's guitar -- finally I will know what it is to play this Holy Grail of guitars through this amazing gear and feel that classic Santana tone coming from my own fingertips...". Then he played the guitar and was shocked when the same old tone he always got on his cheap-ass guitar through his crappy amp came out of the speaker. :-)

Of course you can also have the opposite experience ("oh, the reason it always seemed so damn hard to get that tone was because I just had crappy gear this whole time") but in my experience it's much more rare.

It's hard to explain; this really cleaned up the mix and made things have bigger impact, but at the same time that tonal "flatness" was still there, which is why I originally suspected the problem had something to do with the signal chain.

Recording/mixing is really a dark, mysterious art. :-) I'm in the middle of mixing an album and struggling a bunch with it, largely due to a big change in my monitoring (new position in the room, got a sub, did some room correction). It never ceases to amaze me how challenging it can be.

[Judders]

Are you double-tracking your guitar parts?

That goes a long way to creating a bigger sound.

[ashcat_lt]

Just like to mention that there are usually 12 corners in a rectangular room, and all of them are good places for bass trapping. The wall/ceiling corners are great places to put traps that don't encroach on floor space. The floor/wall corners would seem to be the opposite, but if you can get them in behind or underneath your furniture...

[Lawrence]

Changing preamps is way down on the list of things that affect sound.

I'll have to disagree with that, but only contextually. I say "contextually" to avoid the almost inevitable stream of counter arguments. I'll give one specific example.

I've been in situations in studios where we were setting up drums, and monitoring in the control room, and (as one example) changing the pre-amps on the overheads made a major difference. Changing from a typical consumer level console pre-amps (Mackie whatever) to really good Class A stand alones.

But in the other context for most us in the home / personal studios, sure, a decent pre (or set of pres) is all you need. It's far down the list of things you should be concerned with sound wise until you start reaching for the last 10%.

But I can - clearly - hear the difference between say, my MOTU Traveler pre-amps and my Grace 101 on certain signals and very often had to pick what to deploy it on because I only have one. I typically used it on DI acoustic guitar. It sounds really great on that... way, way better than most USB audio device preamps.

If you ask me to explain why that is, I couldn't... but the transients and harmonics and all that kinda "sparkle".

In fairness though, you have to be at the source when that's happening to do the A/B's to really hear it. After all the post processes all you hear is guitar, or bright guitar if EQ is engaged.

Another example from my chains are AT4050 -> M101 or AT4050 -> DBX576. While the first chain is a great choice for some things, they sound completely different on close mic'd vocals on the same source. Of course, the latter is a tube pre. But to the other point, neither sounds "bad quality".

[clepsydrae]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

But I can - clearly - hear the difference between say, my MOTU Traveler pre-amps and my Grace 101 on certain signals and very often had to pick what to deploy it on because I only have one. I typically used it on DI acoustic guitar. It sounds really great on that... way, way better than most USB audio device preamps.

Hey -- assuming this is the kind of difference one could hear in any reasonable monitoring environment, would you mind posting an example some day? Say, of a guitar mult'ed to the two preamps (so the performance is identical)? I know it's a fair amount to ask, but it seems like there are a few pre-amp questions in the forums these days, and such examples are few and far between, and a lot of bedroom-recordists are sort of lost in the woods on this issue without examples. Having an example we could point to and say "here... here is an example of when/how a preamp can make a difference, and how much" would be really nice. I'd do it myself but I have no high-end gear. :-)

[Lawrence]

Nah, I'd not bother.

Again, no decent pre-amps today sounds "bad" but you'd very likely hear the difference between a AudioBox preamp and a Earthworks pre-amp on certain sources in a good listening environment. With a distorted rock guitar you may not hear any difference at all, with some other sources like drum overheads or stereo acoustic guitar or vocals you might.

There's a reason why many studios typically have multiple different brands of outboard pre-amps instead of just buying 10 of the same model. If they all sounded the same and did the same thing you'd just buy 10-16 of the least expensive ones and be done with it.

[serr]

Not to leave anyone with the impression that the preamp isn't important. A good preamp can be every bit as important as a good microphone and a good AD converter. Those ARE the 3 big players in sound quality.

Just that even a modest preamp in an integrated audio interface will be at a professional enough level to use. If you can't get a proper signal in then something else gross is going on and we're pretty far away from critiquing a preamp!

A 'prosumer' grade preamp isn't like going from a car to a tricycle. If a Neve preamp is a sports car then the prosumer model is a Toyota. (Behringer would be the Yugo)