Topic: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Hi!
I've always recorded music without external preamps (at least when I wasn't in the other people's studios). I know that RME UFX+ has pretty decent, clean preamps but I've started to think about getting a preamp to achieve better sound. Initially I wanted to get a Neve copy, but then turned to ISA One. But will it make any difference at all? I'll be using it mostly when recording vocals with Shure SM7B or Neumann KMS105 and also with electric&bass guitars plugged into DI. Thanks!

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

In my opinion, it makes no difference. I think the UFX+ preamps would be the best choice.
For me there are some other features important.
Is the preamp controllable from the computer ?
Has every channel it's own phantompower ?
Has the phantompower Softstart ?
Can I place the Preamp far away (madi) ?
Auto-gain ?

M1-Sequoia, Madiface Pro, Digiface USB, Babyface silver and blue

3 (edited by ramses 2021-05-02 11:38:18)

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

IMHO there is no right or wrong. Music making and recording are areas where creativity is needed.

You should dare something and make different experiences, but in the end you should not put the pure (transmission) technique above the actual musicality.

To what extent a preamp with this labor look and certain sound characteristics "gets you or someone else excited" and thus spurs you on to top performance (or not) remains to be seen. Yes, good equipment can of course also inspire. But I think much more important than the choice of preamp is the sound of the room and the positioning of the microphones and how you or a vocalist sings in.

The ISA one (without the digital interface) is not that expensive (below €500) and maybe you like the sound/voicing when experimenting with different Mic impedances. Try it out and make experiences of your own, not that you later reproach yourself "oh, if I would only have tried that earlier".

I personally think that you are very well positioned with neutrally tuned RME premaps that do not color the sound. The gain factor and SNR are already excellent with RME. The instrument inputs of all newer devices are at a very good 1 MOhm, so everything is fine even in the area of instrument inputs.

About the operational advantages of RME equipment has already been reported. I personally like the combination of excellent and payable HW paired with the capabilities of TotalMix FX very much. For example: that you can easily store / recall settings to get reproduceable good results quicker. Also remote control by Auxdevice feature or Autoset to find the proper input level quicker/more precise (be it for Mics or for connected instruments), etc.

And when you have learned to appreciate the quality of the RME preamps, you can also scale / expand the number of mic inputs very nicely with Octamic XTC or 12Mic via ADAT or MADI. For this you have very good expansion possibilities on the UFX+ via ADAT and MADI. Or could you think of a life setup with 28 or even more ISA One ? Thanks for loaning me the van..

I would tend more to get different types of microphones for different purposes. Then you have only to change the mic and not the setup.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Quote: “I've started to think about getting a preamp to achieve better sound.”

Tattva, all the greatest audio designers, the true legendary designers have sought to create equipment that captures and coveys the spirit and emotion of musical performance faithfully.

With “transparency”, not colouring, adding or subtracting anything whatever from the sound, but rendering a purely truthful sonic picture, of the intensity or calmness induced, by the spirit of the music.

You mentioned a Neve copy. Now sadly no longer with us, Rupert Neve was a great help to the group I played in many years ago, a wonderful man, greatly admired who always sought “transparency”.

RME preamps are “transparent”.

Here’s the thing, you will often hear people say or read on the internet “X preamp is great for Bass and Drums, but no good for female Vocal or Piano” or “Y preamp is great for male vocals and Guitar, great on Piano, but weak on female vocal and no at all good for Bass.”  You probably have encountered such comments on the internet.

One thing I learnt from George Massenburg (another great audio designer), is that if a preamp works brilliantly for one sound source, but poorly for another sound source, (a common occurrence with coloured preamps), although people convey what the preamp works well with as a strength. It is point of fact a clear indication of weakness in the preamps design. Great preamps work brilliantly, utterly regardless of the sound source, because they are inherently “transparent.”

So, there are good reasons for simply utilising the excellent “transparent” preamps you already have, not the least of which is an economic one. As if your use an especially coloured preamp for all the different sound sources you will need to record, you are going to need an awful lot of them and be extremely wealthy indeed. Which probably won’t be the case if you distribute your music through spotify. smile

For sure, there are good designers that deliberately design, manufacture and sell coloured preamps, but its worth reflecting on the fact that all the greatest recordings in the history of recorded music, (especially in what I regard as its golden era), were made utilising” transparent” preamps. Overwhelmingly the ones installed in the Large Format Recording Console, such as those Rupert invented.

Forgive this next point, but it’s one worth making.

Sometimes I hear people moaning about the problems in the music industry. 

From my perspective, the biggest problem in the music industry is usually stood directly in front of the mic.

The reason I write this is because I often feel that the underlying reason people feel the need for such things as coloured preamps or indeed highly coloured mics vastly hyped in sound; is a sense, a profoundly deep inward awareness, perhaps a huge insecurity, regarding the performer’s actual ability and quality of performance.

They are looking for a sonic crutch, to lift the inadequateness of their performance. I’m not suggesting that is the case with you, but I think it is sometimes, perhaps very often the case. Sometimes it is that people want something to give them an extra edge.

I think they should practice, train, develop, improve and substantially raise the level of their sonic performance, instead of looking for a sonic crutch.


Quote: “I'll be using it mostly when recording vocals with Shure SM7B or Neumann KMS105 and also with electric&bass guitars plugged into DI. Thanks!


My immmeadiate, instinctive reaction upon first reading your post, was identical to Ramses final line.

If you are truly seeking stellar sound, (a highly commendable aspiration), then I think you would be best served by investing in some higher quality mics.

This is not to suggest that there is anything whatever wrong with the mics you have, The Shure SM7B is perhaps the best bang of buck on the market in studio mics and has been used by some of the world’s top artists on bestselling recordings.

The Neumann KMS105 mic is excellent, though without a suspension, and not usually a normal studio mic, but in truth specifically designed and optimised for live performance.

But neither are capable of revealing the full quality of your recording equipment and investing in higher quality studio mics, would be in my humble opinion, the very best approach to complement your array of gear.

They would last a lifetime probably and retain their value reasonably well.


Mics are like people.

Every model of mic has its own uniquely characterful voice.

Although he recently passed away, I was always a great admirer of (and appreciated the time he spent communicating with me) of an American producer and sound engineer called Al Schmitt.

With a million dollar Neve Console in front of him when he was tracking, looking at the Console there would be nothing going on at all, no E.Q. used whatever. He got what everyone regards as truly fabulous, very natural sound, simply by extremely judicious choice of mic for the sound source, and very exacting placement in the near field.  Working hard to find the precise sweet spot, of tonality of sound.

With respect, I think you should spend a great deal of time learning the varying qualities and tonal character of all the most popular designs and brands of mic. Pore over their frequency charts endlessly comparing, properly understand what they will emphasise and diminish.

Listen to every mic you can, compare and appreciate the ways in which it’s different from other mics, and be prepared in this world of instant gratification, to see this as a long learning curve. A journey of experience that will properly equip you to always make the best choices possible for any given sound source.

You must learn this for yourself, and don’t take too much notice of reviews or opinions about particular mics.

Work hard to learn and decide for yourself what you want.

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Thanks everyone for replies! I guess I need to clarify a few things. I’m not a sound engineer but also not a complete beginner when it comes to recording music. I used to record in my friend’s studio with API 3124V and various mics. After moving to another city I switched to U87 and another API through SSL console in the studio owned by the company I work for.

Pandemic complicated the situation and right now I prefer to do everything at home. Unfortunately I have an untreated room and I also a baby which makes recording a little bit harder wink That's why I've decided to go stick with KMS105 and SM7B. KMS105 sounds quite good on my vocals. I've compared it with U87 once in the studio and was shocked by how small the difference between them was - at least in case of my voice. I’ve bought SM7b because I wanted something a little bit darker and less sibilant. I've also got Golden Age Premier PRE-73 DLX to drive it. They sounded really nice together, but the preamp wasn't working properly and I had to send it back.

Why am I looking for another preamp at all?
1. I used to record with API and felt it made something magical to the sound... the tricky part is that I had Fireface UC back then, so probably the difference was far more noticable.
2. RME preamps are fine with SM7b, but seem a bit noisy (at +65dB). I know they are considered clean and transparent & this mic just needs a lot of gain, but maybe an external preamp can do better in terms of noise? I know it's strange, but I felt that with GAP preamp the noise was a little bit less apparent.
3. I always had problems with harshness and sibilants (it wasn't great even with U87). I know that certain preamps can help with it and smooth things a bit. This is one of things I mean by "a better sound".
4. I also like to add a little bit of saturation on instruments with various plugins. I thought that getting a preamp can help me with getting the fuller sound without using plugins.

So, to sum up - I know that a good mic and a well treated room are really important. I'll probably be recording in the studio  again when everything gets back to normal, but meanwhile I need to achieve the best sound I can. I don't want to spend the money on something that won't help me though...

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Maybe a simple Cloud lifter or similar gain booster might solve your problem. I have a pair of Neve 511 and a Cranborne Audio  Camden in a Lunchbox. I like them a lot. But it's subtle.

7 (edited by CrispyChips 2021-05-03 11:57:36)

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Quote: “I used to record with API and felt it made something magical to the sound”

In the past, I’ve used API equalisers quite a lot and always liked their gear, felt the same, so completely understand your point.

It wouldn’t hold true anything like to the same extent today though, would be my opinion today. Things move on and I can get even better sound than then, simply by better mic choice and more exacting mic positioning.


Quote: “I’ve bought SM7b because I wanted something a little bit darker and less sibilant.”

O.K. now we’re getting somewhere. I think you should try to listen to a Neumann TLM 193. It’s very flat so natural sounding, but takes a slight dip in the regions that typically engender sibilance.

https://www.thomann.de/gb/neumann_tlm_193.htm


I have a few thoughts on this issue that I trust might be helpful to you. I like to credit the people I learnt from and one thing I learnt from Joe Chiccarelli, is "the complementary mic method". That’s what he calls it anyway.

That is, if you have an overly bright sound source, you utilise a dark sounding mic to bring sources with sonic extremes into better balance. Conversely, if you have a duller, muddy sounding sound source, you use a bright sounding mic to lift the cloud from the voice, helping it to cut through clearly.

He explained this method to me after recording Elton on “Songs from the West Coast”. I thought a lot of Gus Dudgeon who was sadly killed with his wife in a road crash. But after Gus passed away, Patrick Stewart tended to bring in different producer/engineers, to record different parts of the overall recording.

Whoever was the hottest engineer at the time in any given particular area, to do whatever they were proving themselves great at. Elton’s voice had become somewhat tired sounding over the years and Joe’s method gave it a fresh, new younger sound. It’s a method that can work wonders, in the right situation.

It seems you are trying to enact something like the above, the opposite way round, but personally, I wouldn’t have picked an SM7B for that. Really, try an TLM 193, many dis this mic but it seems to be because they don't appreciate where and how to use it.


Quote: “I always had problems with harshness and sibilants (it wasn't great even with U87)”


The other thought that sprang to mind is whether you are simply micing, far too close.

Internal, saliva induced mouth noises, plosives, vocal artefacts and sibilance will all be exacerbated by simply micing too close.

As you are using a Neumann KMS 105 which is a hyper cardioid mic designed for live use on a noisy sound stage, a mic that demands you use the mics very close indeed, we can justifiably suspect that to be the case.

With respect, good singers in a studio (as opposed to a stage) can freely project their voice forward from a distance and pop filters used, all of which assist in the reduction of the incidences, of such unwanted vocal artefacts.

Additionally, if you are utilising compression on the vocals, that will naturally inflate the level of each and every unwanted low level vocal noise, heightening and exacerbating all the problems associated with recording artists voices.

You either have a accept a degree of such noises, (sometimes a large foam filter can help), (I have even made breathy singing work positively for the song), or spend lots of time surgically removing them with software, or if the singer is really good, they all can be completely avoided by simple mic positioning and distance from the artist. Overhead booms are good for this, and angling the mic away, in line with the profile of the nose.

It’s been my experience that artists who have had cosmetic dentistry straightening teeth with braces etc. are most likely to induce sibilance into their recordings, so always look at their mouth for signs of such work. (This is also advisable purchasing horses).

Otherwise, it’s extremely likely that the problem is very much down to the way you doing things, the actual mic choice or in all probability, both of these.

If that is true, the salient point to appreciate is that it is unlikely that what you are considering to do to fix the issue, is actually likely to do so.

If... You use the same voice, methods and equipment that are causing the issue... With new equipment.


The SSL factory is just a handful of miles from my home.

It’s a bright, forward sound, used typically, and under such circumstances might reasonably be expected to actually heighten the qualities you are seeking to eliminate. Though I am not arguing against anyone's else's recommendations or views and respect the people giving them.

Additionally, my local economy will gladly welcome any SSL investment you make!


Be open to experimenting utilising the artists position to the mic off axis to its typically intended mode of use.

Many supposed mic experts that dismiss certain great mics, would find they work perfectly for the difficult sound source they are attempting to record if they simply had the nous to use them off axis.

Good Luck with your recording endeavours.

8 (edited by CrispyChips 2021-05-03 16:47:18)

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Quote: “That's really a bad choice for an untreated room in a home studio, sorry.”


No need to be sorry at all.

Thank you for this point, one I am extremely happy to address.

If you study the 193's  frequency response,  it helpfully dips, precisely in the areas that sibilance occurs.

If you walked inside many of the recording studios of yesteryear, many of whom were used to record highly successful globally commercial hits, you would quickly elect to use the untreated home studio, instead.

Session Players from the late Fifties and early Sixties I worked with, would often swap stories with me about the profound emotional challenges of creating inspirational musical recordings, at unearthly, hours, in cold rooms with hard walls, little to no soundproofing whatever and thinning, dirty carpets.

Perhaps I am just revealing my age, and my sense of humour so please forgive me, but when I read this, my mind went to the Rolling Stones (a popular British Group) who at times recorded in large warehouses, with little wooden booths with open fronts for each player and utilised their mobile studio, with was pretty state of the art for the time.

Jade, (Mick Jaggers daughter who got married a few years back) has lived next door to my niece in Ibiza for a great many years indeed, and Mick, who would be happy to have a drink with you in the local, would be far less happy if he was paying.

The idea of shelling out for Recording Studios being at their disposal for long periods of many, many months at a time, was thus in earlier days, largely mitigated by their capital investment in a quality mobile.


With the greatest possible respect, the salient point is this...

Better acoustic treatment of the room, will not solve his problem of sibilance, but the 193 will radically diminish it.

Nor is basic acoustical treatment likely to provide him with the tonality of sound he is looking to achieve from the recording equipment he is using.

I have no doubt better acoustic treatment would be of benefit, but the original poster is looking for an answer to a particular issue, an answer that addresses it, at minimal cost.

I’ve used many highly sensitive Neumann and other mics mic’s of quality in less than ideal situations, where the concern might be that they would additionally pick up many unwanted extraneous sounds and poor acoustics.

That is I presume, the concern you are alluding too, but I found that I got away with it every time. That it didn’t prove to be the problem I had been extremely concerned it would be. Traffic noise can be a similar concern in certain Concert Halls at night. I understand such misgivings and distrust. But found I made it work. The last Live Album I made went to No 4 in its respective chart. Lots of things wrong with how that that recording was made, the situation was very far from ideal. But it was successful.

Your mileage may vary.. I am just reflecting recording experience, over the last 50 years.

Thanks again, for bringing up this important point that was concerning you.


Quote: “Again, not very helpful statement since my suggestion was linked to his SM7B microphone which does VERY well with this channel strip.”


I like SSL products and Shure products as well as anyone.

With complete respect, what you appear to be indicating is that the sound sources on which you have used this combination of equipment, has got you the results that you wished to achieve.

That’s great, I’m sure everyone here is after the same thing. The best possible sonics they and their concomitant equipment is capable of. All I’m suggesting is that in my experience, (and in the experience of every sound engineer I have ever been involved with) SSL equipment (as typically used) has an aggressive, bright, forward quality.

Producers and Sound Engineers call it the “sound of rock music” with its compressors on every channel when talking Large Format Recording Consoles with me, for that reason. In recording studios when I started, compression was largely used only as a sound effect, somewhat like reverb, but far more sparingly altogether.

My understanding of the original posters concerns, was that he was looking to attenuate and diminish certain aspects of sound, that will exacerbate.

Of course, without access to his sound source, none of us know how well or otherwise a specific combination will do.


Again, the salient point is this…

He’s not likely to fix the problems he is trying to, by buying a preamp.

But judiciously altering his mic choice and methodology utilised when recording probably would.

Thanks again, for giving me the helpful opportunity to clarify these unassailable, axiomatic, fundamental points.

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Quote: “If you study the characteristics of an untreated home "bedroom", you will find yourself avoiding large diaphragm condenser microphones alltogether ...”


Altogether with respect, here’s a friend I was involved with years ago, who clearly thinks that’s incorrect!

He uses the same mic as me..  And is in an untreated room..

I think it’s pretty good! 

You..?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFn_0dd … rt_radio=1



The salient point is.

Today, people all over the world are using Large Diaphragm Condensers, making recordings in untreated rooms. Particularly during the Covid Crisis.

But thank you for your well intentioned advice, though I would point out that personally, I have sought none, and suggest advice is best directed to the poster, who requested it.

Try to help the original poster. That is my approach as I have greatly appreciated the assistance I have received here.


Quote: “as to your initial novel about "brilliant preamps" being transparent and not coloring ... SSL must be total crap (or your argumentation must be way off).


With respect, you appear to be attempting to misrepresent my points, though clearly, with lamentably little success.

I live a handful of miles away from the factory where SSL equipment is designed, and the professional equipment manufactured.

Some of the people there have been friends for years, and the local people are amongst my friends too. I like to see the local companies prospering.

At no time have I used any such derogatory language. Either towards SSL equipment, yourself who I have treated with the utmost respect, or indeed anyone else whatever on this excellent forum.

SSL equipment is widely acknowledged (as typically used) to have a particular “sound”. Others whom I highly respect have described it as “the sound of rock”. This is a compliment, not in any way a derogatory statement.

I describe the SSL sound (as typically used) as forward, bright, and a particular feature of SSL Consoles is the provision of compression on every channel, alongside its master bus compression. These features exist factually and provably.


The problem the original poster is addressing (sibilance) would not in my humble opinion be improved by a bright, forward, compressed sound (that would heighten low level vocal artefacts) from a different preamp in a channel.

The built in RME preamps are sufficient to the poster’s situation, that point appears to coincide with all, but a singular respondent, to the entire thread.


Quote: “To be very honest, I think you don't actually know what you're talking about.”


With respect, I merely wish to assist the original poster and am not trying to advise you.

And certainly, have no intention of making any derogatory remarks towards you.

I only wish you well in your attempts to make good recordings.


Quote: “you wrote that you have "little experience" with the SM7B“


Yes, that is so.

In recording studios and live I have always normally used Vintage Neumann mics, Vintage AKG mics and Vintage Sennheiser mics, although I have a bunch of the newer offerings from Neumann, Beyer and an extensive number of other manufacturers.

Please forgive a highly subjective opinion…  I prefer the above Vintage mics altogether. Its just my personal view and ears.


But did state that I thought the SM7B “the best bang for the buck in studio mics”.

A while back, someone came here I admire a lot, who had a huge global hit which was recorded with an SM7B, so its not as if I am completely unaware of the mics qualities, features or its particular advantages, used on certain sound sources and in specific situations.

Indeed, it is the case that I was recently communicating with top producers at the BBC, regarding an artist I was bringing to their attention, using a recording and movie made with him performing, utilising a Shure SM7B.

I can think of local church that has a whole bunch of them and I have heard them used on their recordings to very good effect on particular sound sources. I especially appreciate the frequency adjusters.


Its just that, it would not be my first “go to” mic.

So, “in that sense”, I have little experience with the Shure SM7B.

Thus, others, have made far better use indeed of that specific mic than I ever have.


Quote: “The SM7B is known (and highly regarded) for its creamy and pretty warm characteristic.”


For Shure, It’s all of that,

If that sound is what you are after.

Not everyone will be, and that includes me... Usually.


Quote: “As a more general remark: All the name dropping and off-topic in your novel size postings with plenty of contradictions doesn't make you look more knowledgable.”


Knowledgeable… Moi?

I communicate my points, the best way I can.

They are intended to help the original poster as much as possible.

Thank you once again for all your points, which I trust have been properly addressed with appropriate  courtesy.

10 (edited by basssalad 2021-05-04 00:25:27)

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Maybe, before spending 2-4k on a new mic or preamp, You should treat your room, so it sounds good. You might find what you have is good enough.

11 (edited by cigame 2021-05-04 10:44:31)

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Normally, I use the RME preamps in XTC, Micstasy and internal UFX+.
Only if it is a band with heavy drumming, I like to use API 3124V, where I can lower the output a bit to drive the preamps a little in the red.
That gives you a heavier, fatter drum sound right away, without using plugins.
And so also on the headphones of everybody playing along.
If I want a little extra shimmer on vocals, I use a UA 610.
And if I have to deal with extreme dynamic singers or horn players, I use API TCS with a little compression.
AMS Neve 1076 does not color very much. In fact they sound horrible, if they are overdriven because they overdrive the RME converters at the same time and that's no good.

UFX+, FireFace 802 FS, Digiface USB
12 Mic, M1610 pro, Micstasy
MacBookPro M1
Logic Pro X

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

Hi! Thank you all once again for so many replies. I know that the preamp won't solve all my problems, but my main goal is to decrease the level of hiss (UFX+ preamp for sure) and hum (can't say if it's a preamp or a mic).

TLM193 and other large diaphragm microphones won't do in my case I'm afraid. I've got Aston reflexion filter but still I think there's too much room heard on the recordings. SM7b works great in this regard. I could be wrong, but I don't think that the better room treatment is needed for this mic (at least I hope so as it was one of the reasons I got it). Harshness and problems with sibilants are results of both my speech apparatus and Polish language which is kinda... well, hissy wink SM7b is helping with that a bit, but a little bit of additional warmth would be welcome.

I'll look into SSL XLogic Alpha Channel, but I hoped I could either get something cheap like ISA One or something with a bit more character - like a Neve clone or maybe even UA 610. This last preamp is something I've always wanted to get, but I guess it's not the best choice for SM7b.

Anyway, I still wonder if an external preamp can help me in lowering the level of noise while using SM7B. Or maybe with UFX+ preamps it's as good as it gets?

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

tattva wrote:

Anyway, I still wonder if an external preamp can help me in lowering the level of noise while using SM7B. Or maybe with UFX+ preamps it's as good as it gets?

The noise you hear is the noise from the room and the mic which the preamp amplifies - the noise levels of the preamp as such are way below both of these. If you amplify by 65 db, you will hear something.
One way to avoid that would be a less noise (condenser) mic. I personally don't see why specifically LDCs would be problematic in untreated rooms, they don't inherently pick up more ambient sound than others.

But you have the KMS105, so short of shopping for new microphones, that should be a solution to at least the noise issue. I don't think there's anything this mic will really stop you from doing, and possibly also nothing that couldn't be fixed with a bit of EQ... If you can't get a decent result with a mic like this, your problem is not the mic....

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

lightbox wrote:
CrispyChips wrote:

... If you study the 193's  frequency response ...

If you study the characteristics of an untreated home "bedroom", you will find yourself avoiding large diaphragm condenser microphones alltogether ... no matter how much you write the opposite.

Not quite sure what specific point about LDCs would make you say so.... Neumann claim the 193 has a "Cardioid pattern without off-axis coloration", and indeed the diagram looks quite good that way.

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

lightbox wrote:
RME Support wrote:

Not quite sure what specific point about LDCs would make you say so

Trying to give a short answer:
The Neumann KMS105 and the Shure SM7B are "optimized" for close-micing. By design they are less sensitive to more distant sound sources. LDCs, as the name suggests, have a much larger diaphragm which shouldn't be a surprise to be more sensitive.

But just as a real life example for the non-technical people:
Hold a big sheet of paper at an arm's length and blow at it to see how it moves. Then hold a small piece of the same paper at an arm's length and blow at it. The smaller one will move a lot less ... thus being less sensitive, right?
If this still isn't enough then think about sailing where you won't use a huge spinnaker on a windy day ... you likely rather use a reefed main sail and a small jib.

Not to get into arguments about microphones here, but this explanation is a wrong as it can get, including the "real life example". Obviously, it takes much less wind to move a small piece of paper, but that isn't even a good example.

Also, there are plenty of SDCs that work fine with distant sources, and so will the 105. There's nothing there that would make this mic become "less sensitive" to distant sound sources (besides the slight reduction of low-frequency response to minimize proximity effect).

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

If you have problems with room reflections, you should try a figure 8 mike.
In a normal living room, a mike on a stand and a standing vocalist, you'll get a sound source almost in the middle between floor and ceiling. Together with a wall, at the same distance, you'll get heavy resonances. Figure 8 may blend out at least the up und down reflections.
Or put a diffusor on the ceiling above the mike.

UFX+, FireFace 802 FS, Digiface USB
12 Mic, M1610 pro, Micstasy
MacBookPro M1
Logic Pro X

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

lightbox wrote:
RME Support wrote:

Not to get into arguments about microphones here, but this explanation is a wrong as it can get

Maybe that's why you build (great) audio interfaces and not microphones wink
Once you try what I wrote, you will see how 100% right I am. Hold the big sheet in a corner and blow at it from an arm's length. And then hold the small piece in a corner and blow at it ... it will move A LOT less.
Why? Because it won't "collect" as much wind energy as the bigger sheet. EXACTLY like sails on a sailboat.
It's ridiculous how this isn't the most obvious thing ... apart from the fact that one can just TRY it with actual microphones outside on a busy street. Really baffled by the lack of understanding this simple thing.

Again, this example/analogy makes no sense at all. But I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself about that.
That said, I personally neither build microphones nor interfaces, but I've worked with both for decades.

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

cigame wrote:

If you have problems with room reflections, you should try a figure 8 mike.

The KMS 105 is a hypercardioid and should work quite well here as well.... Just sayin'...

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: RME UFX+ & external preamps

tattva wrote:

Hi! Thank you all once again for so many replies. I know that the preamp won't solve all my problems, but my main goal is to decrease the level of hiss (UFX+ preamp for sure) and hum (can't say if it's a preamp or a mic).

TLM193 and other large diaphragm microphones won't do in my case I'm afraid. I've got Aston reflexion filter but still I think there's too much room heard on the recordings. SM7b works great in this regard. I could be wrong, but I don't think that the better room treatment is needed for this mic (at least I hope so as it was one of the reasons I got it). Harshness and problems with sibilants are results of both my speech apparatus and Polish language which is kinda... well, hissy wink SM7b is helping with that a bit, but a little bit of additional warmth would be welcome.

I'll look into SSL XLogic Alpha Channel, but I hoped I could either get something cheap like ISA One or something with a bit more character - like a Neve clone or maybe even UA 610. This last preamp is something I've always wanted to get, but I guess it's not the best choice for SM7b.

Anyway, I still wonder if an external preamp can help me in lowering the level of noise while using SM7B. Or maybe with UFX+ preamps it's as good as it gets?

bassalad already gave you the answer to lowering the level of noise while using a SM7B: use a gain booster like Cloudlifter or any of this flavours preamps from Tierra Audio https://store.tierra.audio/products/flavours-preamps , if you don´t want to colour the sound choose the Salt Flavour and you´ll have a +39 db boosted gain.

Here you can hear how they work and sound and you can activate the subtitles in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yflYfHMmMTw

Jorge

Windows 10, i7-6800K, ADI-2 Pro, Fireface UFX II