Greetings to everyone who takes the time to read this. I'll keep it as short as possible, while giving enough information so that you can get an accurate representation in order to help me out. I tried this in the hip hop section but I've yet to get any feedback there, so I thought this might work better here.

Long story short, I'm returning to the music scene, specifically tracking my own hip hop vocals....again....several years after selling most of my gear. I have a solid PC I bought last year, so I got Pro Tools set back up, (it's what I am used to and prefer) acquired all of my necessary plug ins etc. I still have my "character mic" laying around which is a KEL-HM2D so I went out and bought a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, just to run my mic through it to see if I even had the zest to record again. The mic has a nice flat response, no exaggerated frequency bumps, but it's a little TOO dark for a main vocal mic and I feel like the preamp in the scarlet 2i2 is a bit too sterile for lack of a better term. Anyway the zest is till there, so here we are.

I believe if you're going to do anything, it's worth doing right, and I take my music seriously enough, that I want to get the best possible results that I can.

Before even thinking of buying solid gear, I went to Home Depot, got a bunch of materials and built respectable Acoustic Panels out of owens corning and placed them as strategically as I could, because the room has to be right before I start throwing gear in here. That's all settled and now it's time to purchase a few things.

I've spent the last few days reading copious amounts of information from this site and others before even thinking of posting this. I've listened to mic shoot outs, videos about different pieces of gear etc, etc. Just to get caught up on what all is being produced now. My last set up was Pro Tools 7 or something with a M-box yadda yadda yadda. It's been a minute.

I've narrowed down a couple different avenues that I could travel down that I want some insight on. My voice isn't DEEP, but it isn't high pitched either. More so in "the middle" depending on how I'm enunciating etc.

Now, barring EQ and comp that can be done ITB, I want full, present vocals that cut through a mix while maintaining body, and I want to do that as best as I can from the get go, while not being TOO dark OR overly "bright/sibilant."

A couple of different chains I was thinking of are as follows:

1. AKG 214
2. Warm Audio WA73 - (favorable reviews as being passable in terms of a neve clone and supposed body that it provides for lead vocals)
3. Audient iD14 - (since you can bypass the internal pres, the regular USB version, not the usb-c unit as I don't have that connection on my pc)

1. TLM 102
2. Warm Audio WA12
3. Audient iD14

Price wise, these paths are similar. I'm really liking what I'm seeing in regards to the WA73, but that PLUS the TLM 102 would be a bit pricey at this point, so I threw the AKG 214 on there as I heard a few applications using that mic and it was intriguing. I'm not anywhere near a store that would grant me the opportunity to try any mics currently.

One thing remains the same which is the interface. I COULD keep the scarlet 2i2, but per my reading, you can't ACTUALLY bypass the pres in this unit. From my reading, you can do that with the Audient iD14. Correct me if I'm wrong. The other interface I was pondering on is the Steinberg UR22C as you can by pass the pres on that unit as well. I will probably never record anything but vocals, so I don't need a interface with a ton of inputs and outputs. I just need to be able to by pass the internal pre, and run an external preamp through it.

I've checked out the options mic wise from Warm Audio, some were intriguing as well as mojave, AT, Shure etc etc. Any input is appreciated. Flame away fellas & ladies. Hope everyone has a good one!

EDIT - From further reading, my understanding of bypassing the internal pres on both of those interfaces is incorrect. You can do it with the iD22 by using the return jacks, however, I wasn't looking to purchase that unit. Also from further reading, unless I were to get one of the much higher priced interfaces, bypassing the internal pres is not an option unless I were to purchase something like the scarlet 18i8 that has 2 line inputs, not something I was wanting to do. But I was liking what I was reading about the quality conversion of the Audient units. I'm also seeing that the concern of NOT being able to bypass the internal pres is slightly overblown. So with that little addition does the Audient iD14 still suit the job?

Dave Duncan

What's the trick here? Too much information? Let's go people!

It's a complicated question loaded with personal preference and tied very closely to how your voice and room sound along with the aesthetics you are trying to get to. All of which is highly qualitative.

If the only real issue for you is a lack of a bit of saturation and high EQ in the chain I'd suggest a JHS Colour Box V2 could be all you need between the KEL and the 2i2.

Note that while the preamp circuits might stay in the path when being used as line in, any line in will have a clean buffer circuit anyway and in this case the clean and characterless preamp of the 2i2 is just acting as such a buffer with variable gain. I wouldn't worry about it.

But, if you want to spend more and follow your instincts with either of those options you have deduced for yourself, they are both nice and powerful recording chains with great sounds and features.

The tricks are...

1. Mics are where a lot of "color" lies, but also any mics result is hugely affected by the room, mic technique and position.

2. The preamp, beyond having enough gain, is a non-factor in overall "color".

3. Any "line in" is perfectly fine for a DI application, again, so long as there's enough gain and isolation isn't a problem.

4. If you want to change something about the sound quality of a particular mic, and have gone through positioning and room treatment, EQ is your tool. Not a graphic (we aren't living in the 1970s), a full parametric. It takes time to learn the skill, but way worth it.

5. All pro V/O recordings involve some form of compression.

Everything you've asked about is subjective. You are the worst possible judge of your own recorded voice quality. Everybody thinks the "chain" is critical, and that things have to "pair". Wine and food need to pair. But the world of creative "color" starts with a good mic (I'm deliberately not specific) and then the world opens up with processing. Eq, compression, etc. Spend time there.

"Full present vocals"... Reminds me of my Soundelux U195. Also UT 47FET/Sorrento 87/AT4050/Heiserman Type 19, if you want to stay under $1000.

IMHO start with one (or two) new microphones. See what you can do, with what you have first otherwise.
Then you'll know better, how to expand.

Any clips?
Chris
P.S. For those following on a lesser budget, you can still make fine records with...
3U Audio Warblers/Roswell Mini's/Rode NT1 (Black)/AT4040 & 4033/SE 2200's/etc.

Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate it. I was active in music recording for several years before taking a lay off so I'm certainly not a noob by any means, and I know all about what can be done ITB, mic technique, room treatment etc, but I'm certainly not to the level of many here who have been doing this since when I started and never stopped, and some even more so than that.

I was always the type that ran a mid grade mic straight into an interface, in a partially treated room and I was able to get enjoyable recordings that were worthy of listening to, because I didn't want to shell out money for random pieces of equipment as money wasn't falling off the trees back then.

However, back then I knew a few locals who had at least a nice pre amp, mic and a decent interface in rooms that were no different than mine, and the recording without any ITB treatment sounded quite different. Was it night and day? No, but it was different, in a good way. Granted that could have been just the different mic choice etc, but there was a difference.

I venture to guess that even a modest chain consisting of a "good" mic, and a "good" pre makes a difference. I don't think that grabbing a preamp just for the sake of doing so will magically make everything sound great, but it certainly adds more than just "gain" depending on what type of unit you are running. Correct?

Or are the 1000's of people who claim so, from hobbyists to full timers just convincing themselves of that? That's a genuine question by the way, because whether it's a ISA one, a warm preamp of some type, great river, heritage or what have you, I've yet to see anyone say "I sent X preamp back because my interface pres were just fine or better."

Whether it's a "clean" style preamp or a pre more geared towards "color" if you will, say the 73 inspire pres for instance, it seems most everyone, "most" say the quality of their recordings improved over running the stock pres in their interfaces, despite how far the tech has come in even the prosumer interface units.

Certainly there is something to that, and I can't see it just being the gain. I would also venture to guess that running my KEL-hM2d into my 2i2 pres, would be lacking compared to say a TLM 102 into a ISA one, or 414 into a WA73, wa87 in to a great river etc, or whatever mic and pre combo you come up with that is revered as a "step up." Yes I know that some voices work better on different mics, but you get the point.

I'm in a better position financially these days, hence why I was looking at doing things more diligently this time around and attempting to capture things in the best possible manner from the get go before I even get to doing ITB mixing. Now, I don't have BAE and U87ai money, but I have enough to play around with and get myself into a good spot that should suffice for a couple of years at least. That's more so what I'm looking to do.

I liken it to car audio, which I've been active in for years. A guy comes in and wants to get "loud" well, loud is subjective. Are we talking about a couple of decent 10's in a sealed box in trunk with a 800 watt amp? That's "loud" to some folks. Or are we talking about a 4th order wall, with 6 15's and 40k in wattage, with lithium batteries, high output alternators, 8" drivers in the door for midrange, full component system for the high's etc etc?

I'm not looking to do either, but more so somewhere in the middle. I'm not looking to shell out 3k for a U87ai, 1200 for a bae or 3k for the eq version along with 1k for a baby face pro. I'm also not looking to try and churn out quality respectable recordings with a very dark character mic through a 2i2. Could I make it passable? Sure and I'm confident I could but that's not what I'm looking for.

I'm looking to find a nice middle ground that will suffice for a couple of years and opinions regarding that would be great. If that is being too subjective, then I guess this entire forum could be seen as non-effective, because unless the question if of particular nature, the answer could always be "that's subjective so we really can't help you" which in reality I'm not looking for a "get this exact piece of equipment" more so, additional opinions on the route I'm headed down.

I don't think the quality difference is MIND BLOWING when going from a "ok mic and low level interface" to quality mid level equipment but it makes SOME difference certainly, no? Or else everyone would just be running "good" mics straight into their interfaces. I've done the "ok" mic through the interface and spent hours playing with mic position, and mixing ITB to compensate for such. I enjoy those things, I really do, but a "nicer" chain would certainly make said things easier when getting a quality recording from the get go.

I know it's all subjective which is how it is with everything in audio, but I was more so looking for additional ideas on mics and pre amps that get a decent amount of love and use in my genre or in general, as I know a lot of equipment has been made since my last departure.

However, it seems regardless of what I search, what equipment I read about etc, there really is never any consensus on ANY equipment for the most part. For every 10 people that like a particular mic, preamp, interface etc, there are 10 who dislike it.

I came to the conclusion last night after doing more research, that I'll just have to order whatever I'm half interested in, and go from there as I suspected from the get go. With that being said, I didn't think it would hurt to throw up a post on here with at least remotely detailed information about what I've done in the past, the steps I've taken to ensure my recording environment is where it should be BEFORE recording, as well as what my goals are and to put an idea out there of what I was sort of looking at, instead of the usual " Yo I like to rap, and I need a mic and pre amp" posts with no additional information about their experience, room treatment, etc etc like I usually see, which makes it hard to help in offering opinions. I wrote the long winded post in the hopes I would get feedback on those particular items, OR additional ideas on different equipment I haven't yet come across.

Again I appreciate the time you took to reply and I hope this response clears things up from my end. I hope your weekend is going well.

Dave Duncan

Thanks Chris. I actually have a buddy who owns a 4040 and I liked it for the most part, but it was a bit prone to sibilance on my voice. I only played with it for a night when my main mic at the time was being repaired so had I spent more time messing with mic position that might have been a non-issue. Speaking of the UT 47 FET, that reminds me of the WA wa-47 I looked at briefly but I wasn't liking the samples I was hearing. I'll give the mics you listed a look.

I see you're also suggesting to not grab a preamp? Interesting. I find that the scarlett pres just seem lifeless, or sterile if you will. I was wanting something to add a little weight to the lead vocals, which is why I was looking at the various neve "clones."

Regarding clips, I have some old tracks I did with my old setup which was the old Sterling ST55 (ran that mic for years) right before the brand went downhill somewhere around here that I could post, so you could at least hear my voice. What's the best way to link to clips on here?

Being not very Techie, I just will post a short clip directly. I hear you on the AT4040, it's a little too bright for my already bright singing voice.
More of an issue in 2nd Tenor, not as much in (darker) full Baritone. I have two Legit vocal ranges (3 if you count Male Falsetto/Soprano-a work in progress )...

So a variety of vocal mics, tend to work better on me. Until you hit the price level, of a Chandler TG or Lauten Atlantis, the U195 is the most sonically flexible IMHO.
I typically just make short vocal "Practice Recordings", so dynamic microphones, are another important part of that. (partly to duck bad room tone) Mainly for the return to local stages.
Chris

Understood. I've never been a singer but I can harmonize a bit and make it passable with some surgical repairs ITB. But straight up singing? Not this guy lol. I can rap for days though.

Also, after really rethinking my approach, and what I'm really after sound wise, I'm liking the looks of the ISA-ONE or the UAD Twin Finity 710 which has the ability to provide solid state, or tube depending on how you dial it in.

I've listened to countless shootouts of vocals running through interface pres vs preamps of good quality and it's obvious to me that there is a difference, and I know what the pres sound like in my 2i2 and that's sterile and lifeless, weak even... and I'm not feeling like going straight into my interface is going to net me the results I'm looking for.

The mic choice is still up in the air, but I'm thinking about just grabbing the Scarlett 4i4 3rd gen, and running a ISA-One or the Twin Finity through the 4i4 since it has actual line inputs.

I need to be able to stack vocals for backing tracks and choruses and I'm feeling like a preamp that is too 73 inspired might make that more difficult than just running a "cleaner" preamp per my additional research.

I like the thought of running the twin finity more towards the tube side, providing a little more body for lead vox, then dialing is back more solid state side to stack backing tracks and choruses.

I'm obviously just rambling at this point, but you get the idea.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not really looking to be a weekend warrior with this. I could just travel to studios with decent gear to record and be done with it. However, while I love the creative side of just making music, I equally enjoy recording myself, as well as the mixing process and the flexibility that comes with it, which is why I'm in the particular position making these decisions.

I did trial runs with my KEL mic and my 2i2 and while they didn't sound "bad" by any means, it was certainly lacking. The mic itself is particular in the way it sounds and even if I just got what would be considered a great mic, I still feel like the pres in the 2i2, while transparent, are just lifeless and sterile.

The search continues, but after revising my end goal, I believe I've narrowed my pre amp selection down to the ISA-ONE or the UAD Twin Finity 710. I like the UAD and the flexibility it offers overall, but with that being said, I've seen nothing but mainly positive feedback about ISA.

There is a price difference of 250 bucks, but with the additional 250 bucks for the UAD, you get essentially a solid state as well as tube pre all in one which you can dial in to taste depending on the situation. I don't think I could go wrong either way though.

The mic choice is still up in the air, but after my past experience and my recent time listening to shootouts, samples, and reading others experiences, I think I might be short changing myself by not getting a quality pre from the get go.

Buy once, cry once as they say and with the modern interfaces all having passable, transparent but sterile(ish) sounding pres, I think I should bite the bullet and get it over with. I feel like the ISA or UAD are both units that would serve me well for years to come.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Dave Duncan

Without doing a very well controlled test, the results, the "difference" could be anything, including non-existent. Be very, very careful about any conclusions based on random uncontrolled, sighted testing.
I stand by the way I ranked the various items and their degree of influence. The primary goal in preamp design is clean gain and low noise, with proper mic loading. When you suggest that preamps do something beyond that you go past what they were designed to do, and ignore that variables in microphones are 1000X or more than what possible changes a preamp might impose.
We're moving deep into a "belief system" here, and many want to believe what they believe and through science and reason out the window. My response is simple. Whatever makes you happy, and whatever you think is better is fine. I do take exception with altered perceptions of reality, though, when they are stated as fact without substantiation.
They are never tested using double-blind ABX testing, so none of the non-audible biases are ever controlled. Results are whatever people want them to be or believe they are.
Again, the differences are in the mics, with the only slightly significant factor being the load it works into, which is a preamp factor, but can also be externally modified and controlled.
Lemme ask you this: Before you go down that very subjective road, what have you done to control the other massive sonic signature in your system: the monitor speakers and room? Take a look at what speakers, all of them, do to the signal. They are cruel and unusual, massively more impact than most mics. The ideal monitoring environment isn't the same as the ideal room for recording. And all speakers in rooms benefit from EQ, especially the type that deals with time-domain issues. Done that?

So when you're picking a mic/pre pairing (a concept I vehemently object to), you're doing it through the masks and influence of your monitors. You are actually picking a mic/pre combo that compensates somehow for something your monitors are doing!
Well, thanks, but I now feel I've wasted my time. Probably not doing it again.

Thanks for taking the time to reply again. I'm not going to go point by point but it seems we are disagreeing on the preamp situation.

I agree with you that there are always variables at play. I'm not disagreeing that at all. I also never stated that a preamp will make magic. I DO however hear plain as day differences when listening to shootouts of preamps vs running straight through the interface pres.

So do you mean to tell me, that of all the shootouts I've listened to, through my studio monitors, in my treated room, (no I didn't get some acoustician to come in here and do everything TO THE T) but I'm certainly not in an unfavorable environment where my ears could be so easily influenced that I can't tell the difference when someone is singing the exact same 3 lines, using the same mic, one pass through the interface pres, and one pass through say a ISA-one for instance, with no other processing at all. You're telling the only perceived difference is due to the pre amp ONLY adding more gain? One clearly sounds better than the other, and it's not just the gain from the preamp.

Are you trying to tell me preamps add NOTHING but gain? That's what you're eluding to. However, when the volume is matched, I can CLEARLY tell the difference in a shootout when someone is running whatever mic they choose through the interface, vs the preamp.

I'm also not sure what you're referring to regarding the "pairing" of a mic and preamp. I merely threw out a few things I was looking at. I never said "I NEED A MIC THAT WILL PAIR PERFECTLY WITH A SPECIFIC PREAMP" I just threw out some ideas and I welcomed any additional opinions about the avenue I was looking to go down.

My analogies were perfectly sound in regards to my situation. I'm merely stating that I've yet to hear someone or read about someone getting a quality preamp and then returning it because they got the same or better results from their interface pres. And I doubt that is JUST because they ONLY got gain and nothing else from said preamp.

Regarding your statement of "Well, thanks, but I now feel I've wasted my time. Probably not doing it again."

That was in response to me stating "I'll just have to order whatever I'm half interested in." What's wrong with that? You specifically said you were being "deliberately unspecific" and that it's all subjective, which only backs my opinion on what I hear and many others. That's also perfectly fine. I wasn't looking for anything SPECIFIC at all. Just ideas is all and you offered that. I disagreed with your stance per what I have heard with my own ears and you disagree with that as well, and that's fine. But my point about ordering whatever I'm interested in still stands, does it not? What else am I supposed to do? We've already established how subjective this is, so short of getting additional opinions, I'd be doing that in the end anyway. No?

I don't know about you, but this forum stuff doesn't bother me. You can't offend me, I don't get mad about others opinions and the like. I'm not here to offend anyone else, just shooting the breeze about different ideas. We don't always have to agree. But the preamp situation intrigues me if you would like to address this response.

I think a lot of the preamp differences people hear can be because of Z...impedance, especially on dynamics. (and is what Ive read)
After getting aware of preamps with variable impedance it becomes clearer...no pun intended.

ISA One has a few impedance settings, preamps w/ variable impedance would be helpful for a wider range of mics....add some more color to the pallete. I think the ISA series kind of shines with that ability.

Some might hear a preamp with a specific mic and compare to some other preamp and say X sounds glossy and the other murky or cloudy or like a towel is over it etc.
I havent studied impedance. Ive read its not such a big deal with LDC/SDC for some reason..

I really hesitate to get into this because past experience has proven to me that this is a dead end. But one more pass.

What you hear is the result of many uncontrolled variables in a so-called shootout test that is loaded with biases.
No, I'm telling you the test methodology is far too flawed to be trusted.
No, I'm telling you the variables and biases are out of control.
No, but the other aspects are swamped by factors outside of the preamp.
And I'm saying you don't know what you're listening to, you can't confirm gain match, phase, and a host of other issues. Worst of all, the samples were not recorded at the same time, the singer re-sings each time, which adds a huge uncontrolled variable.

When testing electronics that produce very small differences, you absolutely must control every variable, including, even especially, the non-audio expectation biases. That's not being done. The results will be noisy, possibly skewed data.
Fine. Throw the concept of 'pairing' out. It's pointless anyway.
Ok.
I like to approach things scientifically. It's what I do. When I designed preamps a few decades ago, that's what I did. I tried to identify what was actually audible, and what was not. If found out that many things that are still assumed to be true have no basis in fact. And today, decades later, we're still throwing science out the window, doing bad "testing", and I'm not going to bother trying to counter any of that.

In the end, it's simple economics. And the one thing I took away from economics was that it is about maximizing happiness, nothing else. Figure out what makes you happy...the magic preamp, the big LDC, whatever, get it, and love using it.
The single biggest issue here is subjective judgements being made without controls. I'm in favor, even a proponent of subjective testing. But controlled and in a way that reduces the judgement process to just the audible characteristics, without other biases. Then you can have some real subjective data that is repeatable and reliable.

What I've found in my research is that electronics meant to do one thing very well with minimal impact on the signal are impossible to compare in a casual shoot-out because the uncontrolled external biases and variables swamp out the actual differences. You can prove this, and I have done this exact test. Create an A/B test where both A and B are identical. Tell the tester that A is something superior, and B is something inferior. Pick your qualities, it doesn't matter much. A costs 5X more. A has the latest "sonic purifier" circuit. Then tell the tester that others have found the difference clear and unmistakable. Bingo, you'll have the guy reliably stating that A is better. Now, those biases are artificial, and intentional, but the same thing happens when the biases are unintentional, and the differences are too small to actually hear. You'll get a difference, clearly, unmistakable, and the tester will state the difference with conviction. And you won't have any real valid data.

I suspect the shoot-out comes very close to that, with few if any bias controls. I say that without examining the test regimen, because of how the "results" are presented and argued for. The whole thing raises flags.

That's where I'm coming from. There are differences in preamps of course. But are they audible? Under what conditions? And there are actual, real causes for sound qualities people describe with positive terms like "warm", "spacious", "open", etc. There can be no audible sonic change without a change in the acoustic wave. But how much, and what the change is, well, that's where the real secrets lie. And to get there, you have to cut through all the non-audio biases, sloppy test methods, and folk-lore.

The difference, as I see it, is some, perhaps yourself, seek devices because the combination is perceived as positive. I want to know why. And I find that when you do real, controlled testing, the subjective opinions neutralize, the results often hover around 50% (ambiguous differential), and the clear differences are no longer present.

Very interesting, and I mean that. It's clear you know your stuff, so don't think I don't appreciate you taking the time to write all that out, because I do.

I'm also not trying to be obtuse, but I do enjoy fleshing things out to gain further understanding when someone has an different take on things.

I understand what you're saying about the tests and the variabilities and I don't discount it. Also for the record, when I listened to said tests, I certainly wasn't WANTING the preamp run to sound "better" to my ears, because if I can get out of spending money, then so be it.

I listened with an open mind and found that the run that through the ISA-One was noticeably more present, full and pleasant if you will, than the run through the internal pre's of the 2i2, which sounded thin, sterile and lifeless in comparison. Did it sound bad? No. But it was definitely a different sound. Night and day? No, but it definitely sounded better to me.

I'm also not looking to spend money just for the sake of spending it. I'm merely seeking out pieces of equipment that seem to have POSITIVE impacts on recording chains (speaking about preamps specifically here.)

So after reading 1,000's of posts, I have a hard time believing that all of the users that have a positive experience are merely fooling themselves and getting nothing but additional gain and nothing more.

"There are differences in preamps of course. But are they audible? Under what conditions? And there are actual, real causes for sound qualities people describe with positive terms like "warm", "spacious", "open", etc."

Quotes like that are what leave me perplexed. The question is worth asking, but if the outcomes are really that subtle or even non-existent in terms of preamps in some cases, what's the point in even running external pres?

Why doesn't everyone just run their mics through their scarletts, or their tascams, audients, etc etc? Is the group think dynamic really that strong? Are all of the hobbyists, home studio artists, engineers etc all drinking the Kool-Aid and using equipment that really isn't doing much? I can't say.

But I believe there's strong anecdotal evidence (I know you won't like that) in terms of audible changes when throwing a notable pre-amp into the vocal chain. Whether that's more body, sheen, presence, space etc etc and not just pure gain. I'm not looking to get into the science of it all, but there's something there.

I enjoy these deep conversations, but this was really just a simple post with a few things I was thinking of getting, that are usual foundations in quality chains. Good mic, good pre, interface etc. Nothing more, nothing less and I was more than open to other suggestions and still am.

Can you do it without a pre? Absolutely, I did it for years. Could I have gotten better recordings with a quality preamp, or gotten that little extra "something" before mixing from a good pre? I believe so.

Could I hook a nice mic up to my 2i2 and go to town right now? Sure. But would a quality pre add a little something extra depending on what type I get besides just additional gain? I do believe so and countless others have reported the same. Maybe we're all just foolishly deceived by our brains and conformation bias? Who knows.

However, if it's just a matter of gain, and it's all just self induced bias, then a lot of people have spent a lot of money on nothing more than pretty gain boxes. Don't get me wrong, I know the cut and dry job of a pre, but I do think folks are getting more than just "gain" from them. As always, thanks for taking the time.

Desire is only one bias. There are many, many others. You can't control even the "desire" variable by conscious effort. That's the point of blind testing. You remove "desire" as a possibility completely, along with other potential biases as well. Universally, when we do that, we find the ability of testers to reliably detect small differences reduces dramatically, often to zero.
Again, uncontrolled biases. An open mind is great, but in scientific research it means very little by itself when attempting to obtain unbiased data.
All I can say at this point is, look for the commonalities. Their tests are uncontrolled and therefore biases were present, and not accounted for. The science of electronics, and the purpose of design runs strongly counter to there being audible differences. So while we can't say with certainty that there were no audible differences at all between any of the preamps subjectively tested, we can't say there were either. We actually have no unbiased evidence of anything. Then we look at just some of the biases, things like price and reputation, front panel design, product weight, and look for any correlation. Do you find any? While inconclusive, those correlations would be very interesting.
Biases are marketable. If you're running a studio as a business you need to impress your clients so they find value and return. Clients bring their opinions with them, and you cannot simply ignore them if you want to win clients, you have to embrace them. Is a Sta-Level a wonderful device? Probably not, but wow does it ever have a popular reputation now! If you have a couple in your EFX rack, even if the client doesn't use them, you've just made an impression. (And I wish I'd walked away from my first radio engineering job with both of those units, but there was no love for them back then.)

A studio owner will buy equipment for those reasons alone. I had a recording studio client who installed the first networked digital studio in his market. Very expensive stuff. He also had a room with a vintage Neve desk. Also very expensive. He did it because both were marketable bullet points at the time, and gave his studio distinction. The Neve was a total PITA to own, and it eventually went away because it wasn't cost effective to maintain, but it was there one reason: to impress the client base. If I were a studio owner, I'd build my budget based on what I needed to have to capture business. That budget would include the physical plant, the gear, and the work force, and may not make sense from the standpoint of real audible results.
There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence, and zero evidence from controlled testing. If that's all it took, you could market sugar pills to cure, well, anything, and a percentage of your customers would post positive reviews.
It seems pretty clear that a lot of people spend a lot of money on pretty things for reasons well beyond the primary purpose of that thing. Examples abound outside of audio too, you won't look far to find them. Again, economics is not about saving money, or even making money, it's about maximizing happiness. We get there differently. For me a big source of satisfaction is deepening my understanding of how things work and why. For example, I'm currently investigating transformers and why people think they sound different, with a strong bias toward sounding different positively. Found out some really cool stuff already, some expected, some less so. But it's a long road with no end, and more about the journey. Discerning the real differences and their magnitude is, at least for me, more interesting and productive than propagating popular mythology.

anyways.... Dave, I really love my TB12 pre, especially in a vocal chain. should be pretty similar to the WA12 just with different tone options... It has definitely improved my vocal recordings even if that's just subjective, or based on bias, or it does nothing, or blah blah blah snore snore snore. you should totally buy one, it's a lot of fun to twist the knobs. thats my favorite part

Very interesting insight. Thanks again for taking the time to reply and get specific. Gives me another variable to consider.

Good afternoon Pottymouth, knobs are fun that fun huh? I'll have to take that into account. I actually was looking at the TB12 recently and it was on my short list until I narrowed it down a bit. However, the whole pre situation has me on the fence.

That's actually hard to do because the specific biases and variables are unknown. Without detailed information about the devices and tests there's no way to even begin to list them, and the list would be incomplete anyway. However, having a human re-sing the test material each time is a HUGE one. Unless the test material is exact to the point it could be nulled against itself, you are comparing different stimuli. And no human singer can do that. Even if they could produce an exact replica of the acoustic wave each time, if they move a fraction of an inch, the entire bet is off.

How about polarity? Flip polarity on one device, and identical devices will sound very different on many human voices. Was that even checked? Great if it was, but again, no data. How about the complex electrical load the pre presents to the mic? Did anybody do a full input impedance plot on each device? No data again. In the absence of data, what do we have with which to make a good judgement call?

This is exactly why the correct test methodology is required. You don't know what the biases may be, so you have to do something to control them all. And even if you must have a singer re-sing for each test (and you don't), the proper test structure could control that variable. But, sing into one chain, then sing into the other, and compare...that ain't going to do it, not even close. No two samples will come even a little close to being able to null. So now you have a huge built-in variable that nobody's even considering at all, but drawing firm conclusions anyway.

Yes, I know this is boring @ pottymouth . Science is boring when you don't care about it.

Indeed. Before ever having this discussion, I did actually think about things in terms of moving an inch or there between takes etc. Even when listening to pre-amp shootouts on acoustic guitars, which I don't play I often wondered how the sound could be effected by merely picking the strings here and there just slightly different on each take etc.

That's just things that occurred to me while watching that you covered in further detail that does indeed make sense.

So let me ask you this. How would you then, go about picking gear if you can't physically get your hands on gear before purchasing? I'm intrigued to hear your ideas on that. I can look at frequency resposne charts on mics all day, but without access to those particular mics in order to test them before buying, all I can do is gamble. Same with these highly variable based "shoot outs" from mic pres, interfaces etc.

All of which is what prompted my to make the comment in my first reply to you of "I'll just have to order what I'm half interested in after making the best informed decision I can and hope for the best."

Thoughts?

I wouldn't spend much effort or worry on the mic preamp, so long as it comes close to the theoretical Johnson noise floor and has flat gain beyond what I need, it'll be fine. But I have a few copies of my own vintage design too if I ever get bored. And I probably never will to that extent. The ones I still have were built around the Jensen JE16 and 990 opamps. So yeah, vintage, but probably not worth all that trouble to fire up. There are chip amps now that are quieter with comparable bandwidth and CMRR, so kind of moved on. The chip based preamps in interfaces are usually pretty good, and very easy to profile. If you have any doubt, a bit of testing will rest your worries.

But mics are tough. You do have to experience them, they're very "organic", and specs barely scratch the surface because they are so incomplete. Reading response on-axis is pretty straight forward, and is the basis of the mic sound. You can easily see the peaks in an SM58 vs something like an SM81, and that tells you a lot. And the self noise and max SPL figures on a condenser will relate to how usable it is for sounds in various SPL ranges. Where it gets fuzzy is they don't ever show response in the time domain because it's so difficult to measure, but that would show how a response peak is actually a resonance that carries on after sound has stimulated it, and that's a LOT of color. Detailed off-axis response isn't hard to measure, but that generates more data than they want on a cut sheet. Off-axis response will indicate how a mic might sound in a room. And there's not often a proximity graph either, unless it's a mic designed to control proximity effect like the RE20. All of those response curves are massively audible because they deviate from "flat" a lot over a wide range of frequencies, and would tell us a lot if we actually had them, but of course, we don't. In short, you pretty much need to hear the mic in your application to decide.

Rental works pretty well for that, when the mics of interest are available, especially the expensive ones. I've rented mics enough to make some decisions. I bought a Rode NTG2 after renting one and being impressed, for example, and that isn't really an expensive mic, but the rental was so cheap. The cheapies you can just buy and return, even Amazon works for some. I just hauled off and bought a pair of SE-7s because I wanted a pair of small, quiet, SDCs for some nature recording. Not only did they totally win that, but turns out, they're pretty spectacular mics for just about anything. Not a great build, but good enough if you're careful. I haven't got around to the Rode NT2A that way yet, but may. The used market is good too, you can buy, try, and re-sell with minimal loss. I have an AT-4040 I got used, and I'm glad I didn't get it new. It didn't impress much. I got in a Coles ribbon mic last year, found it had a blown ribbon, had it replaced, tried it, it didn't impress, so I sold it and made my investment back plus a bit. I have a short stack of SM-7s from a radio station client that downsized, they took some repair, but are now good to go, and a couple of RE20s as well. You just have to snoop around and be fairly fluid with your ownership.

There are two kinds of mic people, the ones that build a collection to have a set of tools to use, and the ones that just collect for collection's sake. I would love to be the latter, but I'm more the former, and my practical tastes run toward the smooth and uncolored ones because I can do more with them in recording and in post. I lean towards condensers, lateral on dynamics, and away from ribbons, except for some very specific uses which I could frankly cover just as well with a condenser and a bit of EQ. I do have a couple of vintage mics just for their looks, I admit.

Very intriguing. I'm still undecided on the preamp situation. I've switched my focus more on the mic situation and now I'm thinking I might just replace my monitors as well. I still have my KRK Rokit 6CL's that were limited production. I got them new in 2007 or something like that. I've taken care of them over the years and they still work like new.

However, I feel they're just overly hyped club speakers if I had to describe them. I've been looking at going with some JBL 306p MKii monitors or possibly some Yamaha hs7's but I've seen consistent reports of unsettling mids on the Yamaha's. The JBL's seem to get favoring reviews and aren't ridiculously priced. Nothing spectacular, but I figure some new monitoring couldn't hurt. Also looking at the Adam T7v's.

My Scarlett 2i2 will be getting replaced because I know for a fact I'm not a huge fan of the internal pres. They don't sound bad, but they are just lifeless and sterile to me. I'm thinking of going with one of the Audient units in regards to that.

If were to even get a pre, since the Audient gets good reviews in the clean transparent department, I would venture to guess something more that would provide a little saturation to contrast the clean pres in the Audient would suffice.

Mic wise, well, that's the tricky part. I've looked around locally and I can't seem to find a place that rents mics. So I'm having to spit ball this part of the scenario. AT 4047, Nuemann TLM 102 are still on my radar as that should be the main focus, so I'm willing to throw more coin into the mic situation. From browsing around they seem to be "fairly" neutral, mainly the TLM102 which is regarded as being more "modern" sounding which would fit my genre currently, (hip hop/rap) and take decent processing after the fact. I don't want a mic that does any sort of crazy dips or cuts etc.

All in all, I'm looking to upgrade my monitoring, interface and mic for sure. The pre amp situation is something I'm still undecided on. However, if I do pull the trigger, it will be something more "color" oriented in terms of applying some saturation at the source, think GAP-73, WA-12 etc etc. I'm viewing the whole preamp situation differently now though.

So many decisions, so little time. I appreciate your input per usual Jaddie.

All speakers and rooms benefit from EQ, some need it more than others.

The current most capable and approachable favorite would be this.