Mic Preamps: Hardware 1073 v UAD Modeled 1073

[László]

I’ve been using a Universal Audio Apollo for about 5 years. It’s an excellent interface and the mic preamps aren’t bad with the Unisyn emulations that actually tell the hardware what to do in certain respects, but I’ve been vaguely dissatisfied with my sound.

Back in analog world times when I first got into the music business, I had both a 64 input console with good preamps, and outboard mic preamps. I gave all that up ten years ago, because the ad world demands very fast changes, and I felt that going digital was a sensible choice. To some degree it was, but the audio suffers,

Recently, I decided to go back to hardware mic preamps, and one of the ones I bought is a BAE DMP 1073, a very accurate clone of the early Neve 1073 mic preamp that’s perhaps the classic preamp of all time. The BAE even uses the original Carnhill/St. Ives transformers, the same parts wherever available, same circuit, hand built, Class A topology, etc. It’s very highly regarded, even more so than the current Neve 1073 reissue that doesn’t use the same transformers or components.

I am pretty darn happy with this preamp, and decided to record an A/B comparison between the BAE and the UAD emulation. I used a Neumann TLM 103, and my PRS Tonare Grand PS. I didn’t play anything worthy and there are some clams, because I was going for the audio, not the music, so forgive me for that.

I’ve long argued, here and elsewhere, that as good as these software models can be - and the UAD are generally felt to be among the very best - something’s missing in the audio. This is as true for mic preamps as it is for amps.

Also, to those who think you can’t tell the difference between mic preamps, well, just listen to the clip on good monitors or headphones and you should be able to tell which is which if you listen for the things suggested in the next paragraph.

What follows in the clip is first, the BAE, then after a slight pause, the UAD, then back to the BAE. You’ll probably hear that when the software model kicks in, the heft and bottom end of the track drops out, and the high end isn’t round and 3D, it’s more 2D and a bit over-bright and processed sounding on top. The string to string definition is more smeared in strummed chords. In other words, the hardware is more solid sounding.

The model isn’t bad, it’s actually pretty decent, but to me, they’re not of equal sound quality.

There is no EQ or reverb. The only compression was a slight kiss on peaks so the SoundCloud algorithm would sound halfway decent, but the compression is the exact same for both tracks, it’s on the master buss.

Again, first the hardware, then the model, then the hardware. Listen on good monitors or headphones, please.

https://soundcloud.com/lschefman/1073-bae-vs-uad-tlm-103

 

[jxe]

come on les i could barely afford the uad plugins!

 

[goat-n-gitter]

I just listened through my Sennheiser HD6XX headphones, and while I mostly agree with your observations Les, I think the UAD processed recording would sit better in a mix. I liked the little presence boost and felt like the bottom end of the BAE recording sounded a tiny bit tubby.
I have a pair of Golden Age Pre 73 mkIII's that I use along with two Warm Audio 414 clones, and I've been pretty happy with them, although I don't use my studio nearly as much as you do or as I should.

 

[Black Plaid]

SSL has made some A/D interfaces with their mic preamps built in (we'll see), for really cheap.

I bought a UAD Arrow, but never use it because it's a huge pain in the arse to use their driver software, and the hardware has to be reset every so often.

JHS Pedals has a unit called the ColorBox that is supposed to be based off the Neve preamps *and* uses the transformers. They have a 500 series form factor as well as a second gen stomp box with XLR in/out that passes 48v. This is also tempting for me.

Listened to the clips on just AirPods, and even on those I can definitely tell the UAD was relatively lifeless sounding. Not bad, just when compared it was not as inspiring or alive sounding.

It occurs to me that this whole modeling audio hardware thing is basically "fixing it in post."

Goes to show, just like a guitar and amp, a mic and preamp are two halves to a musical instrument.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

SSL has made some A/D interfaces with their mic preamps built in (we'll see), for really cheap.

Which is peculiar since (in the past at least) nobody wanted SSL mic preamps.

 

[László]

Which is peculiar since (in the past at least) nobody wanted SSL mic preamps.

People are lemmings (I’m as bad as anyone), and tend to follow fashion. Mr. Famous Person says, “Track on a Neve, mix on an SSL,” and everyone says “Yes, sir, that’s the way to go!” However, countless great records have been done with both preamps, as well as many others.

In the voice-over world of audio postproduction, SSL preamps are considered very desirable for their clarity and open quality. Music folks often want color, and want the Neve. I’m good either way, and have a lot of SSL experience recording. It’s good stuff, too.

The Six is actually a pretty awesome sounding little box.

 

[László]

I just listened through my Sennheiser HD6XX headphones, and while I mostly agree with your observations Les, I think the UAD processed recording would sit better in a mix.

Well, that’s not really how it works, and I’ll explain why in a moment, but first, that little bit of bottom boominess you’re hearing is just proximity effect from the mic, and it’s my bad. I’d just gotten it that day, and hadn’t used a TLM103 in years. I was a little too close to the soundhole of the guitar.

So blame that on my mic technique. If I back off the mic a little, that’s solved, but then the UAD sounds even thinner at the same distance.

However, the reason the brittleness in the UAD and the smearing of the chords is not a good thing is that it can’t be EQ’d out, can’t be compressed out, and can’t be magically processed out. It’s there. Nor can dimensionality and depth of field be added.

On the other hand, I can lowpass filter the bass, even in in my BAE track recorded with proximity effect, and it will still have the more 3D quality, without smearing the chords, and without making the high frequencies brittle. If I need to add a little sparkle on the high end with EQ, the BAE track will take EQ well. The UAD track will take EQ less well, because it will only make the brittle quality more apparent.

There’s also the issue of stacking tracks recorded with a problem in the upper harmonics. Do two takes of guitar to be panned left and right, and you’ve increased the problem with brittleness that the ear hears. Use that same preamp to record stacked vocals, or backing vocals, or electric guitars, or what have you, and you’re multiplying an audio problem, not solving one.

Does this rule out the UAD as a professional tool? No, of course not. It’s only a question of which signal has more integrity.

But audio quality is a choice. Performances being equal, I am always going to choose starting with the best sounding signal, and go from there. If I’ve made a recording error, as I did with the proximity on the mic, I’ll own up to it.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

The Six is actually a pretty awesome sounding little box.

Never heard of it until now, and just watched a video. I stopped after finding out it has the “Listen Mic” feature... ah sh!t... I’m glad I’m not recording bands anymore, otherwise I know exactly where $1300 would be going!

 

[László]

So for today’s session, I’ve deployed the TLM103 for a percussion part, and maybe an acoustic double; the DMP 1073 is hard to see, it’s sitting on the small rack just under the desk, the ISA One on the desk is handling electric guitars, and there’s an Avalon U5 for recording bass direct.

In the back of the room, I’m using the DG30, miked by a Sennheiser 935. With the mic stands set up, and the cables and chart, it feels more like a working studio than in my usual decor shots!