Mic Pre shootout aiming for scientific accuracy (Great River, FF400 and Tube MP pres)

[weemies]

Here's a mic pre shootout I did today with my friend Tom Hakala. We recorded clean and distorted guitars.

We strongly agree with and admire Ethan Winer's relentless pursuit for truth, so we tried to make this as scientific as possible. I hope Ethan approves. If the shootout is flawed, we are prepared to re-do it.

We recorded a direct signal from the guitar onto the computer and then reamped that SAME take through different pres with the exact same mic position. Different takes would invalidate the test immediately, because it isn't humanly possible to play an identical take twice. Audio levels were matched as closely as possible (in REAPER).

The preamps:
- Great River ME-1NV
- RME Fireface 400
- Art Tube MP

Here are the signal chains:

Input:
Gibson SG Special Faded -> ME-1NV DI -> FF400

Reamp:
FF400 -> Radial X-Amp reamp box -> Blackstar HT-5 Combo -> Marshall 1936 2x12 cab (Celestion G12H30 speaker) -> Shure SM57 -> Pre -> FF400

Cables were all good quality, mostly Vovox.

Clean and distorted sets each have 4 files (not necessarily in this order):
1. ME-1NV with low input gain
2. ME-1NV with high input gain
3. FF400
4. Tube MP

Great River is included twice in each set, because different gain settings supposedly "color" the signal noticably. Impedance and loading buttons in GR were always out.

The clean and distorted sets don't necessarily have the files in the same order. Please either give your guesses for BOTH sets, or say clearly which set you are guessing on.

We will reveal the pres once enough people have weighed in with their guesses.

[space2012]

see the last page of this .pdf:
http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/M1_M2_M1p_20031025.pdf

anyway...
i liked crunch2.

clean3 sounds verry dynamic, but... lacks a bit of the details/harmonics of the clean4.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by weemies

we tried to make this as scientific as possible. I hope Ethan approves. If the shootout is flawed, we are prepared to re-do it.

I don't know all the gear model numbers you listed, but the basic premise seems rock solid. All that changed was the preamps, so all you need is to ensure the levels within each group of four are as close as possible. So I say, yeah!

--Ethan

[shadyru]

Weemies any chance to put this in a context of a mix as well? They have their differences but I can never tell the drastics unless they are in a mix.

[Jimbo]

I only listened to the "clean" samples, and I used ipod earbuds....oh well.

I thought Clean 1 & Clean 4 sounded more open and 3D. Clean 2 and Clean 3 were more closed-in.

Order of preference:
Clean 1
Clean 4
Clean 3
Clean 2

[Tom Hakala]

come on guys. There has been many downloads and only two of you have said something about the files.

[Ethan Winer]

I downloaded only 1 and 2 from each group, and they sounded about the same to me on computer speakers and earphones. Hopefully, bumping this in the other thread will help get more people to comment here.

--Ethan

[bryan k]

i only listend to #2 and #4 of the distorted guitars.....

you can hear a huge difference in the low notes! #4 sounds a bit bassier and darker, while #2 was just clean and prestine all the way through

[Sword in Hand]

I did a similar test having a reamped signal go through different DIs (Reddi, GR, ProD2) and the differences were almost null, not quite. But I couldn't tell the difference, in a blind test, consistently enough, to say one was definitely better than the other, same thing here.

But after seeing space2012's pic, from the John Hardy manual, a new wrinkle emerged. These tests never will prove anything.

For one, this listening test, although done better than anything else I've heard here (i.e. only preamp changing, levels matched really well) we're only hearing a clean electric guitar and a distorted electric guitar.

Now I don't know about you, but electric guitars hardly scale the audible frequency spectrum and there's only one isolated guitar track (ok two) that we're comparing things too.

The fact that it has been reamped, can also damage the signal, further degrading the potential quality.

To me the only way to really see what differences preamps could make, would be to have an entire song recorded, with each track's signal split into whatever preamps (level matched to .1 dB) you wanted to test, then mixed exactly the same, with repeatable processing. Then we could hear if anything, was really jumping out as better.

BUT! Even then would one song even be enough? So many variables! Factoring in build quality, features (impedance, low cut, extra features), customer service, and most likely that 5% increase in sound quality, spending the extra money for some will make total sense. It's only the hobbyists or gearslutz who need to argue about this stuff, not the professionals, they just make records, with great gear. Think of it as peace of mind, insurance. Almost every great record had great preamps involved.

Why do we still debate this?

[Tom Hakala]

Nice post Sword in Hand!

In my opinion it really doesn't matter if the signal is reamped or not. It may not be the absolute best signal for the guitar. But IMO a little deader strings would make more difference in sound than the reamping. But the fact is that many here say that the difference is hugeh between preamps. We all have read comments such as "even my wife can hear it and she's tone deaf" "wow it's a night and day difference". And way too many are guiding newbies to buy high end preamps stating how it will be the single most important thing to drastically change your recordings for the better.


If someone approves that a test done with Y-cable is valid then we are ready to do a full song (drums, vox. guit, bass, overdubs). But there's no point doing a song if every other is saying how invalid Y-cable test is because of the impedances.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Tom Hakala

We all have read comments such as "even my wife can hear it and she's tone deaf" "wow it's a night and day difference".

Don't forget lifting the proverbial veil.

And way too many are guiding newbies to buy high end preamps stating how it will be the single most important thing to drastically change your recordings for the better.

This is exactly the point, at least for me.

there's no point doing a song if every other is saying how invalid Y-cable test is because of the impedances.

That test could be valid if the splitter is proven transparent. But no matter what you do, the believers will make up an excuse to dismiss your test as invalid. Unless of course the results agree with their prior beliefs. But we know that won't happen and the sound of various pres will be more alike than different.

--Ethan

[Sword in Hand]

First off, I own a few higher end pres and some middle of the road ones too. I thought that, based on money and some opinions here, a pre amp would make a huge difference. While I can't say they make a huge difference, my recordings do sound better. Now I'm not going and can't contribute that to preamps alone, a lot of other stuff has improved, in my studio, including my own mixing and tracking skills. But I'm convinced that preamps do offer advantages, however small.

One thing I'm beginning to think is that 'colored' preamps (my better pres would be considered such) actually degrade the signal, adding noise and distortions, but in a good way, that our ears are accustomed to hearing, on so many of our favorite records. But these pres have the same resolution as cheap IC pres, if not better. It's like a hi fidelity distortion pedal or something. To me when something is pristine and perfect, it sounds off or bland, but add some color (essentially degradation) and instantly my ears perk up.

Of course, certain styles of music benefit from lower noise and increased dynamic range, like classical, but rock music...

What do you gearslutz think?

[Mark D.]

No big differences. Stacking tracks, that little bit can add up. Based on that, 2 wins being clean, without a doubt. It sounds like it needs less EQ to sit well in a mix with other midrange instruments.

[Tom Hakala]

I think the stacking is a myth. I have done a Y-cable test with two different preamps and the difference was the same on one file than it was on 15 stacked files. BUT I need to do a new test someday to prove somethings, because I can't find my earlier test...

Anyway, thanks for your answer Mark. There seems to be nice amount of downloads, but no one is willing to quess which is which...

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Tom Hakala

I think the stacking is a myth.

It is a myth, as explained in detail here:

Stacking Theory

--Ethan

[6strings]

I think I liked #2 and #4. I may lean away from #1 as it sounds a little more shrill that the others. Very hard to tell, anyway. (P.S. only listened to four "crunch" tracks. I'm heading out the door...)

That said, the differences are small. AND I think the whole stacking theory is total bullshit, too. There are TONS more things so much more an influence on a guitar sound and whether tracks will stack well. Little things like the brand of guitar cable, or pick, and of course microphone position will change the guitar sound significantly more than any preamp will. Think your guitar sound is too bright? Check your EQ, nix the buffer, adjust the mic, etc., etc... A new preamp ain't gonna fix your problem.

[weemies]

Anyone else care to chime in? I'd like to see more guesses before revealing the results

Some of you criticized this shootout, and I'll admit it's not perfect (what is?). However, the shootout certainly reflects reality, because a lot of guitars are nowadays reamped, especially in metal music. Personally I think the differences between the pres at least in this application are negligible, but there are a lot of people on this very forum who claim there are night-and-day differences.

If there are such enormous differences, then surely everyone should be able to identify "trash" like Tube MP easily and consistently, even with just guitars...

[Glenn Kuras]

Only using headphones (and not the best one at that) but I really can't tell any difference. I do own the MP-2NV 2 and the Art thingy and have always thought the 2 pre amps sounded different. Heck if nothing else (maybe it is just old and dirty) the Art pre never seemed all that quite to me. Then again I am listening through crappy head phones so I might be missing quite a bit.

[Tom Hakala]

I'm amazed how many downloads there has been and almost no one is guessing which pre is which.. or which pre they prefer. Usually there's many more replies in threads which have shootout tests made of different takes which unfortunatelly aren't valid.

[Ethan Winer]

Most people are afraid to post what they (can't) hear. Simple as that. Now, when they already know what gear they're hearing, well, then they're experts loaded with loud opinions.

--Ethan

[The Listener]

Listened to "clean" examples only.

First listen impression:

singled out no.2 and no.4 as the sound I would want. No.3 sounded a bit more dull and less "alive". No.1 is fine, but pretty plain, clean(?). No.2 and 4 had richer "harmonics" or something going on... I would choose no.4 to record this guitar, whatever it is. I sort of see more of the "instrument" with 4 and also 2.

Ok, let me embarrass myself - (all for clean examples): no.1 - FF400, no.2 - Great river low setting, no.3 - Art tube preamp, no.4 - Great river - high setting.

I don't own any of those pieces, so it is harder to guess.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Sword in Hand

I did a similar test having a reamped signal go through different DIs (Reddi, GR, ProD2) and the differences were almost null, not quite. But I couldn't tell the difference, in a blind test, consistently enough, to say one was definitely better than the other, same thing here.

But after seeing space2012's pic, from the John Hardy manual, a new wrinkle emerged. These tests never will prove anything.

For one, this listening test, although done better than anything else I've heard here (i.e. only preamp changing, levels matched really well) we're only hearing a clean electric guitar and a distorted electric guitar.

Now I don't know about you, but electric guitars hardly scale the audible frequency spectrum and there's only one isolated guitar track (ok two) that we're comparing things too.

The fact that it has been reamped, can also damage the signal, further degrading the potential quality.

To me the only way to really see what differences preamps could make, would be to have an entire song recorded, with each track's signal split into whatever preamps (level matched to .1 dB) you wanted to test, then mixed exactly the same, with repeatable processing. Then we could hear if anything, was really jumping out as better.

BUT! Even then would one song even be enough? So many variables! Factoring in build quality, features (impedance, low cut, extra features), customer service, and most likely that 5% increase in sound quality, spending the extra money for some will make total sense. It's only the hobbyists or gearslutz who need to argue about this stuff, not the professionals, they just make records, with great gear. Think of it as peace of mind, insurance. Almost every great record had great preamps involved.

Why do we still debate this?

I only now saw this... Exactly how I feel about this thing, so -

[fossaree]

Here's my shot :
(in order of preference)

Clean:
1
2
3
4

Crunch:
1
4
2
3

Clean ones seemed virtually similar . Decision based on subjective sensation .
Crunch ones could notice a micro small difference .
On crunch ones I've made my decision paying attention to the pick's action .

[fossaree]

Forgot to mention that all are Ok , wich is all about anyways !

[roadsweeper]

I can't hear a difference on Beyer headphones. At times I think some clips are muddier or more harsh sounding but this is not consistent to me and probably just my brain trying to find a difference.

Is the argument here that there are hardly any differences between different pre-amps? I would agree to an extent although I did a similar (although not fool-proof) test a few months back. I recorded an acoustic guitar (different takes) through the onboard Amek MZ11 pres, 737 pres and Octopres. I couldn't tell between the 737 or the Octopre but the Amek sounded very, very different. As I said, bit of a flawed test because of different takes and I didn't take the other routing sections of the desk in to account but the difference was drastic. I will try and find the files when we get the Mac out of storage (we're moving).

But, yes I do agree that it is very difficult to tell between the files and I do find all these claims of "X sounds incredible on kick drums whereas x is amazing on kazoo's etc." a bit dubious to say the least. Obviously there are a lot of factors to take in to account here but still well done on the test.

[RTR]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Most people are afraid to post what they (can't) hear. Simple as that. Now, when they already know what gear they're hearing, well, then they're experts loaded with loud opinions.

--Ethan

+1000..you are SO right..it does get a little tiring don't it? Idiots arguing over preamps because they paid out the ass for something that sounds close the an art mp and will defend it to the death!!

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by RTR

+1000..you are SO right..it does get a little tiring don't it? Idiots arguing over preamps because they paid out the ass for something that sounds close the an art mp and will defend it to the death!!

altough i agree with you , you know that soon someone will claim you're worng !

So what ? Let'em !
;-)

[3770]

How did you do the match the volume between the different recordings? There is close none which is impressive.

I’ve listened through a pair oh HD600 and I have a hard time hearing any differences between the different recordings (especially the crunch guitar ones). And I absolutely don’t prefer any over the other.

But I do own preamps that don’t sound the same. For instance two channels of DIY 312 with the only difference of different input trafos. They don’t sound the same but that’s because they don’t even have the same frequency response.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by 3770

They don’t sound the same but that’s because they don’t even have the same frequency response.

Give this man a ceegar!

When things sound different it is easy to find out why. This is the "dispelling magic" I'm always talking about. Some people would have us believe that gear can measure the same but sound different, and that's just wrong.

--Ethan

[fossaree]

Ethan , how about pre's frequency response ?

I'm just asking because there are some pres that claim going very high , for example
my true systems P8:

SPECS

Gain (microphone): +16 to +64 dB
Gain (direct input): -4 to +44 dB
Frequency Response (gain=40 dB): 1.5 Hz to 500 kHz (+0/-3 dB)
Maximum Output Level: +31 dBu
Maximum Input Level: +15 dBu
Input Impedance (microphone): 5.5 kOhms
Input Impedance (direct input): 2 Mohms
Noise (Rs=0 Ohms): -132 dB e.i.n.
Slew Rate: > 40 V/uS
CMRR (CMV=+10 dBu): 85 dB
Crosstalk: -130 dB
THD (+26 dBu, 100 kOhm): .0008%


500 khz !!!
It seems stupid more than most pres ...

I'm not assuming anything , I'm just asking to elucidate this thread .