Simple Preamp Comparison

Doug Young · #1 10-25-2018, 02:58 PM

We had some discussion in the mic shootout thread I posted a few weeks ago about preamps, which reminded me that I hadn't done any detailed comparison between even the preamps I own in a long time. So here's a simple stab at one. I originally thought about trying to do this more thoroughly, but it was going to be too complicated, so here's all I've done:

Recorded 2 short riffs on 2 different guitars, 1 fingerstyle, the other strumming with a pick. Recorded using 4 different preamps in stereo, using a mid-side setup, Schoeps CMC6/MK41/MK8 mics. I matched volumes as best I can for each clip and glued them together. No EQ, no reverb, nothing...

These are inevitably different performances, so there are variations for sure. I had to get up, plug in different preamps, etc, so no guarantee that I was sitting exactly the same down to the millimeter on each take. But I tried to be reasonably consistent (and failed, of course...). My belief is that if you can't hear a bigger difference in gear than in performance variations or moving the mics an inch, it really doesn't matter all that much, so I'm hoping by having two different samples, if one of these preamps sounds significantly better or worse to you, it will stand out and be noticeable by having the same characteristics in both performances.

Someone suggested mono, so I also have a mix here with the side mic muted, so just a Schoeps CMC6/MK41 in mono. The mono versions may help eliminate some minor shifts in how I was sitting, etc.

Should this be blind or not blind? I think people are influenced by labels, but the guessing game gets tedious, so here's what I'll do: the tracks are posted blind here, but click thru to the soundcloud link and all the info is there. So your choice, listen blind then see what you liked, or just cheat :-) and go get the answers up front. Preamps are in the same order in all tracks.

Here are the preamps I compared in approximate price/channel order (not the order of the recording!)

Zoom H6 ($399/6 channels = $80. I had to use the Zoom A/D on this as well)
UAD Apollo with a Neve 1073 insert ($2000/8 = $250 - UAD A/D)
Apogee Ensemble ($2500/8 = $310 per channel, Apogee A/D)
Great River MP-2H ($2000/2 = $1000 per channel, Apogee A/D)

Sorry, I don't have any of the coolest new kids on the block to compare. But the idea here is to sort of frame what you can expect - how much difference can you hear between a range of preamps, from pretty low end to boutique).

Anyway, just one home-recordist's experience. I think the differences are interesting... All these are downloadable - recorded at 88.2, if you want to listen in more detail.

Wrighty · #2 10-25-2018, 03:24 PM

Thanks Doug - very interesting. I have to say that the Great river sounded warmest and fullest to my ears which is a sound I like. The Ensemble next for the same reason and then the Apollo - the Zoom a long way behind with a thinner less engaging sound (I also have a Zoom H6 and this mirrors my own experience with it) I also have an Audient ID which I find nicely balanced for a reasonable price.

runamuck · #3 10-25-2018, 03:32 PM

It's amazing to me that they sound so similar in spite of their enormous price differences.

Maybe I missed it but in what order were they recorded?

Doug Young · #4 10-25-2018, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runamuck

It's amazing to me that they sound so similar in spite of their enormous price differences.

Maybe I missed it but in what order were they recorded?

You can click thru the soundcloud link to see the key on soundcloud. I left it off here so people can choose to listen blind without being influenced if they want.

I'll be very curious to hear what people who listen blind hear. I know what I hear, but I know which is which, so it's impossible to rule out bias.

BTW, just to emphasize this: the differences here are more than preamps, there are 3 different A/D converters involved too, unfortunately.

AcousticDreams · #5 10-25-2018, 08:57 PM

First off, IT's Great to be Back! ha ha...Missed you guys!

Thanks so much for bringing these wonderful comparisons. Truly, they are very helpful. And I am so glad you offered both ways in which to listen, Blind verses non Blind. Myself, being slightly ADH..I need indexing...otherwise I loose concentration.

There are two ways that I listen to your recordings. One via some Nice Sennheiser headphones. And the second through my Mac internal speakers. For some reason, my Mac-year made internal speakers are reasonably flat in, the very limited range they can reproduce. As you know, it is common to use both high end speakers, and very inexpensive small speakers (one cone per speakers) to understand what is exactly going on in a mix. It is surprising how much they can often tell. As the Dynamic range is usually reduced slightly, it can be a useful tool.

So far I am just listening with the built in speakers this time. Later I will re evaluate through the Senns.

My first impressions are a bit surprising to myself. (1)I felt the Apogee Ensemble-thunderbolt to be somewhat stifled? Less dyanmics or openness. (2) The Apollo was very full and smooth..this also surprised me because from our last thread where the Apollo twin was compared...I did not like that at all. But your Apollo with the Neve insert( I assume that is a plug in/)sounded very full and smooth. Even, might be the correct word, to describe the smoothness I heard in the Apollo. (3) The Zoom( I also have a Zoom H4n) Sounded O.K until I listened to your Strumming demo. This to me gave me a full picture...and I did not like it at all. Just seemed to be missing lots of information. (4) The Great River was nice and open sounding....as expected from everyone's previous high praise...but oddly, I missed the fullness and smoothness of the Apollo with Neve insert.

First Impression conclusion: As much as I claim that I want-need openness...I did like the smoothness of the Apollo. BE Careful what you wish for. As I always say, what we think we need, and what we actually need can be completely different. However...This is totally unprocessed...so the Great River processed with a little bit of Compression and Reverb might give me More of what I actually need...Openness, combined with smoothness & fullness. Reverb and compression have a way of defining the Openness characteristics. The Apollo might not benefit from Reverb & compression as much as the Great River.

AcousticDreams · #6 10-25-2018, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Thanks Doug - very interesting. I have to say that the Great river sounded warmest and fullest to my ears which is a sound I like. The Ensemble next for the same reason and then the Apollo - the Zoom a long way behind with a thinner less engaging sound (I also have a Zoom H6 and this mirrors my own experience with it) I also have an Audient ID which I find nicely balanced for a reasonable price.

Wish we had an Audient here to compare. I have heard good things...But always wonder what it will do in the Openness catagory.

ChuckS · #7 10-25-2018, 09:13 PM

Thanks for putting in the time and effort to post these recordings. I did download and listen to the mono fingerstyle prior to looking at the description, and jotted down my thoughts. (I don't have first hand experience with any of the gear.) Then I peeked to see which was which.

The Great River was the thickest and really nice, but it wasn't my favorite; I guess I'm drawn to more transparency. My favorite was the Apogee. To me the UAD was clear but had a thinness and an odd sound compared to the others. The Zoom was my least favorite.

DupleMeter · #8 10-25-2018, 09:51 PM

I listened in my mixing room (acoustically treated) on a pair of DynAudio 3-way mid-fields using a Metric Halo 2882 3d interface for conversion. My thoughts:

The Apogee was my least favorite...but there was definitely something going on with the stereo field with that one. Almost a "hole in the middle" kind of phase thing. That may have had something to do with it. All the others had a much more solid image.

My favorite was the Great River. But only by a small margin. Tight lows, sweet & open high with a solid and clear midrange. It seemed to have the fastest response and the harmonics really came through.

The Apollo was my 2nd favorite. It had a great low end. Nice high end. It was a touch "wooly" in the low-mids. I suspect that may be the Neve "Unison" plugin. It was only slight and would be easily solvable with a little dip around 400 on the way in...or using a different Unison plugin. Though that could be it's own shootout.

The Zoom had a slightly anemic low-end. It made it feel a bit thinner/smaller than the others. Not as many harmonics & the top end "smeared" just a little.

Thanks for posting. That was a fun little listening experiment.

AcousticDreams · #9 10-26-2018, 01:19 AM

Doug I am curious to know if you have ever compared a Millennia to the Great River?

Karel · #10 10-26-2018, 04:27 AM

Thanks, Doug, for all the efforts you made. I first listened blind over my studio stuff: Sennheiser HD 280 pro and Adam F5 nearfields. Over the Adams I preffered the Apogee and the UAD. They sounded so balanced. Between them it is very hard to choose. The Great River sounded not good in the base region. However when I listened over my flat Sennheiser headphones the Great River came close. Still I think the Apogee and UAD did your guitar (without knowing the true sound of it) most justice. I know you don't like the word but it popped up again in my mind: natural (honest). The Zoom came fourth.

KevWind · #11 10-26-2018, 06:48 AM

I will join the chorus, thanks to Doug for taking the time to this.
Given that we are in the long process of moving from our place in Colorado (which is under contract to sell) to our new place in Wyoming, I am not at my studio (still in Colorado) I can only listen with my laptop and earbuds so I am holding off judgement until I go back down to Colorado.

While obviously many if not most here are interested the sound of a solo acoustic guitar But I had one very general thought that being especially for those who record multiple tracks and instruments , I wonder if the quality and clarity of the mic pre and perhaps the mic itself, becomes even more critical with the addition of more and recorded tracks ?

Doug Young · #12 10-26-2018, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Doug I am curious to know if you have ever compared a Millennia to the Great River?

No, I've never had a chance to try out any Millennia preamps

rick-slo · #13 10-26-2018, 09:57 PM

Have not looked at the key. First sample sounds a little warmer and thicker than the others. Did not evaluate for clarity.

rick-slo · #14 10-26-2018, 10:06 PM

deleted duplicate post

Al Acuff · #15 10-26-2018, 10:55 PM

Here's my 2 cents:

The Apogee sounds neutral and unhyped. Surprisingly good for the price.
The Apollo sounds hyped.
The Zoom sounds a bit tinny.
The Great River colors the sound in a pleasant way. Adds boom and sizzle.

FWIW I prefer to record an uncolored sound and then add color or weight to the track in the mixing process later if I feel a need. Doug don't you also have an RPQ preamp?