Direct Bass Pre Tests!

[Gravity]

Ok, these (badly played) soundfiles were recorded direct, through the following 4 preamps:

-Radial JDI into Vintage MAP (API) 312's with Hardy 990's
-UA M610 low serial number, DI input
-Avalon U5 direct to PT
-Chandler Germ Pre DI input

Not at all scientific, but all files were at least nulled to the same RMS value. I am a bassplayer (but they're very badly played impromptu files). Though I tried to play something sort of similar, they might be slightly different.

As always, make yoru guesses and i'll reveal the order in a bit :-)

[glowworm]

im guessing 4 is the U5 though its the only one i have worked with

[greatgreatriver]

I listen on pc speakers with a sub - I like pre4 the most - the other guys sound stubby and muddy and on my system there are more distortion.

[greatgreatriver]

I forgot to say thanks!

Man I just found out these speakers are really bad haha so don't listen to what I said before - but pre4 sounded the best on crappy pc speakers.

[James Lehmann]

Well, they all sound very good - I think I'd be happy with the sound of any of these pre's.

However, as with some of my own tests here, the musical differences between each take make it hard to establish exactly how and how much the pre is changing the sound.

Thanks for posting anyway!

[Red 7]

4-th clip sounds best to me. Thanks for share!

[Lole]

4th sound the best to me too.
I really want to know what pre it is.

N.

[heisleyamor]

???so which is which?

[Gravity]

Ok... I'll have to double check my notes when I get back to the studio, but my memory says this:

1: Chandler
2: API
3: 610
4: Avalon

I'm surprised most of you guys chose the U5... My favourites were the API and the Chandler. Though I like them all. I went to using my m610 for a long time for tracking bass, but now, like going back to revisit an old friend, the API may be the way I'm heading :-) (I just need an inline pad on output because my units will do something stupid like +30, so I can't really drive them or ProTools freaks out )

Of course, the more scientific way to do this would have been the same part on each one, but hey, this was just an after work special ;-)

Thanks for playin' guys :-)

[adamcal]

for me, best to worst is 4, 2, 3, 1

but 4 and 2 are quite close.