A&H ZED R16 PRE vs UA SOLO 610 w AC Guitar

Joe_Scumbag · 25th November 2008

Hi, I did a pre amp test between the A&H ZED R16 and my UA Solo 610. Files are recorded 44.1khz and 24 Bit. No plugins are used. Both recordings are done with the ZED High Pass filter engaged. ZED EQ was bypassed.

Sample A
Chain: Martin HD28 -> AT 4060 -> UA SOLO 610 -> ZED (line in) -> DAW

Sample B
Chain: Martin HD28 -> AT 4060 -> ZED Pre -> DAW

LSProductions · 26th November 2008

It is my understanding that even if you use the 1/4" line in on the Zed, you will still be going through the pre amp stage.

Since both examples went through the Zed's input channel, I believe the UA solo example would also include some of the "flavor" of the Zed pre, which would obviously scew the A/B comparison. Perhaps you could bring the signal from the UA solo into the Zed via the insert, and bypass the preamp section.

That being said, I didn't really hear that much difference between the two, using a Benchmark dac-1 into Adam A7's. If anything, the 610 example MAY have had a little more clarity in the top end. Not sure though, as I didn't listen that long,.. which would obvioulsy mean that the two were that close that I would have to really listen in to be able to discern an appreciable difference.

I own a UA la-610, and if the solo 610 sounds the same as it, and IF your test wasn't scewed because of the aforementioned input issue,.. then I would have to say the Zed's pre's are indeed very impressive. Especially since you would get 16 of them!

Thanks for taking the time.

lukejs · 28th November 2008

Pretty impressive, but the level the playing field.... use no high passes.... just straight amplification... go in on the inserts.... and move the mics back a bit, if you can... sounds a bit boomy....especially the zed-r16 one...... maybe that's my headphones... but seems like since the zed-r16 was boomy, the levels were set with that into consideration, making the mids and highs less amplified...

Joe_Scumbag · 28th November 2008

I'll try to make new recordings this weekend...

memphisindie · 28th November 2008

The 610 track you could hear machines in the background clearly, more top end, seemed to be boomy lows on the ZED and muffled highs compared.
They both sounded good, but, there was too much noise for me.

lukejs · 28th November 2008

Yeah...the background noise gives some clues as to the frequency response in the high frequencies.... and the levels... I'd say the gain of the ZED version attenuated about 2 db to make up for the extra bass that it picked up.... balancing the levels based on equal frequency response would set up a level playing field.
I'm anxious to hear how the ZED-R16 would sound if you go out on IT's insert , and into your DAW, compared to the UA610 going directly into your daw.... That way, the signal is not going through more of the ZED's signal path to the outs.... Then you'd be comparing the two preamps on more equal terms.... (given that you do have another interface , besides the ZEDr16 ? ) cheers !

space2012 · 30th November 2008

1 vote here for the a&h
ZED SERIES :: ALLEN & HEATH

nomoreflakes · 21st June 2011

old thread here but stumbled across it researching the zed r16

have to say in this example it sounds pretty mediocre

perhaps it is the way the mic was positioned

does anyone else have any comparison clips?

28th November 2008	#3
lukejs Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas Posts: 926	what he said... and..... Pretty impressive, but the level the playing field.... use no high passes.... just straight amplification... go in on the inserts.... and move the mics back a bit, if you can... sounds a bit boomy....especially the zed-r16 one...... maybe that's my headphones... but seems like since the zed-r16 was boomy, the levels were set with that into consideration, making the mids and highs less amplified...

28th November 2008	#5
memphisindie Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2008 Location: Memphis TN Posts: 3,961	The 610 track you could hear machines in the background clearly, more top end, seemed to be boomy lows on the ZED and muffled highs compared. They both sounded good, but, there was too much noise for me. __________________ I think I just ran past myself. http://www.memphisindie.com I won't use pitch correcting software. I use "coaching" maybe you've heard of it. It keeps working even when you don't have it on.

28th November 2008	#6
lukejs Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas Posts: 926	the background noise gives a hint to levels... Yeah...the background noise gives some clues as to the frequency response in the high frequencies.... and the levels... I'd say the gain of the ZED version attenuated about 2 db to make up for the extra bass that it picked up.... balancing the levels based on equal frequency response would set up a level playing field. I'm anxious to hear how the ZED-R16 would sound if you go out on IT's insert , and into your DAW, compared to the UA610 going directly into your daw.... That way, the signal is not going through more of the ZED's signal path to the outs.... Then you'd be comparing the two preamps on more equal terms.... (given that you do have another interface , besides the ZEDr16 ? ) cheers !

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A&H Zed R16 Firewire Mixer	Saudade	So much gear, so little time!	3514	3 Days Ago 10:19 PM
Allen and Heath Zed R16, a good centrepiece?	surreyprod.	So much gear, so little time!	50	23rd May 2011 09:08 PM
Zed-R16 questions	rxfit06	High end	3	30th March 2009 12:01 AM
for mixing: UAD2 or Zed-R16 ?	LSProductions	So much gear, so little time!	3	20th November 2008 05:10 PM
Fuse for imported Solo 610 ? european solo 610 users: i need some information.	useme2305	High end	0	8th May 2008 12:40 PM

26th November 2008	#2
LSProductions Gear Head Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 60	It is my understanding that even if you use the 1/4" line in on the Zed, you will still be going through the pre amp stage. Since both examples went through the Zed's input channel, I believe the UA solo example would also include some of the "flavor" of the Zed pre, which would obviously scew the A/B comparison. Perhaps you could bring the signal from the UA solo into the Zed via the insert, and bypass the preamp section. That being said, I didn't really hear that much difference between the two, using a Benchmark dac-1 into Adam A7's. If anything, the 610 example MAY have had a little more clarity in the top end. Not sure though, as I didn't listen that long,.. which would obvioulsy mean that the two were that close that I would have to really listen in to be able to discern an appreciable difference. I own a UA la-610, and if the solo 610 sounds the same as it, and IF your test wasn't scewed because of the aforementioned input issue,.. then I would have to say the Zed's pre's are indeed very impressive. Especially since you would get 16 of them! Thanks for taking the time.

28th November 2008	#4
Joe_Scumbag Gear Head Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 35 Thread Starter	I'll try to make new recordings this weekend...

30th November 2008	#7
space2012 3 + infractions, forum membership suspended. Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,978	1 vote here for the a&h ZED SERIES :: ALLEN & HEATH

21st June 2011	#8
nomoreflakes Lives for gear Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 653	old thread here but stumbled across it researching the zed r16 have to say in this example it sounds pretty mediocre perhaps it is the way the mic was positioned does anyone else have any comparison clips?