Is Jim Jill right on Neve mic preamps?

Is Jim Jill right on Neve mic preamps?

Over the last few days, we have been watching the discussion around Jim’s latest microphone preamp test with real interest (Where Does The Tone Come From In A Microphone Preamp?). The debate is lively. As usual, Jim has done what he does very well: he has taken a topic that is usually surrounded by folklore, marketing language, and strongly held opinions, and tried to put it under a more practical and evidence-led lens. That alone is valuable. The audio world is full of claims about vintage consoles, transformers, preamps, cables, converters, and “magic” tone, and many of those claims are repeated for years without being properly examined.

There were a lot of YouTube responses to his video and I think it is going to have its place in 2026 when we look back on the 31st December next to Fender suing other companies.

We have also posted a video on this topic, not as a response to him, but the clarify a few points from his video. Can phase shift beyond 20kHz generate audible frequencies?

What has been just as interesting, though, is the response from the community. Some people seem to be treating the test as a simple “Focusrite versus Neve” shootout, while others are reacting as if the result threatens the whole idea of vintage analogue tone. We think both readings miss the point. The real question is not whether every old preamp is automatically magical, or whether every modern preamp is automatically the same. The better question is: under what conditions does a mic preamp actually become non-linear, produce harmonics, saturation, compression, or additional frequency content, and does that behaviour make a meaningful musical difference today?

Jim is trying to identify the "magical" Neve sound that you read on every marketing page, and talked about by the big boys. The test is designed to find a meaningful difference, because the supposed sound is hyped that way. His video is not a just a mic preamp comparison.


That is where we think the conversation needs to move: away from vague words like “magic” and towards circuit architecture, gain staging, transformers, headroom, harmonic behaviour, and whether the effect is large enough to matter in a modern recording workflow.

The problems that we see in these responses are:

1) Expectations are too high: The magical sound was told and marketed generation after generation, and our expectations grew. Vintage console sound became a legend and more than a life kind of thing. It was something back in 70s, 80s considering the techniques and tools available. But we have got drive pedals, plugins, infinite amount of gain. When you open up your toilet cupboard, you find a drive pedal these days. That extra may not be meaningful to some. Depends on what you want to do.

2) Accidental Discoveries: Back in the day, the original engineering goal was generally clean, reliable amplification, not ‘vintage colour’ as a marketing feature. The aim was always to make it clean. Transformers had advantages with side effects. When accidentally driven, it introduces these extra frequencies. Upon this discovery, people started using it. It is that simple.

3) 80s studio technique: One common studio technique of the 80s was actually to have an amp at the edge of break up, drive the mic preamp to increase that break up to overdrive-ish territory for a better sustain. Or crank the gain, drive the input and add some grit to Vocals, Snare etc. As they found out, this act also introduces harmonic products. That's it. Whether you like the sound, or it is meaningful in today's world is irrelevant. That's how they did it back in the day.


4) Legend and the reality: Reality bits. Jim is comparing Focusrite which is designed to be clean (transformerless, IC/op-amp-based, electronically balanced designs), flat response mic pre vs a vintage Neve mic preamp. He is not able to find that magical sound, because Neve preamp he is comparing is a preamp module 31105 found in Neve 8078 consoles and was designed to be cleaner than the classic Neve 1073 or the likes. Therefore, Jim's results are not surprising.

5) What is Jim trying to do? What Jim is actually trying to find out is whenever you drive the circuit of certain mic pres (not every mic pre), if it produces preferred audible frequencies (harmonics) that enhances the music you are playing. Focusrite and the likes If driven within their normal range, they do not intentionally add harmonics. This is by design. When overloaded, they tend to clip rather than saturate musically. On the other, vintage mic preamps (again by design) exhibit this behaviour and produce harmonics. This part is indisputable for certain category of preamps, not all, but some. This is physics! Whether you can hear in a mix, you like it or not is a different topic of discussion.

6) Subtle? : The effects are subtle at best, but Jim is also not comfortable with that word either, because if you are not hearing it you are being gas light. The best comparison of this *subtle effect* can be considered to be a guitar amp at edge of break-up. It is there but not there, you question yourself all the time. "I am hearing break up, is it overdrive...or nothing". This is like asking a metal-core listener if the Fender Deluxe is breaking up at 3.

7) Measuring clean reamps will give you clean results: You are not going to identify any meaningful differences by comparing a Focusrite, SSL 18, Apollo X8 and Neumann MT 48 etc. Checkout @JulianKrause youtube channel for an in depth technical comparisons. He knows what he is doing. These preamps use transformerless IC/op-amp-based gain stages and electronically balanced outputs. They are designed to be linear, low-noise, flat-response amplifiers. 

..and yes, if you are after for a clean, the audible differences between competent modern interface preamps are often very small compared with mic choice, placement, source, room, performance, and gain staging. But that wasn't the question Jim was pursuing to find answers.
Retour au blog