Pacifica and Great River: Distortion Preamp Comparision

[mdsmith64]

Hey all,

This is a follow up to a preamp comparison I did with four preamps and a ribbon mic:

20 minute preamp shootout!

With this comparison, I'd like to narrow the field to just the Pacifica and Great River preamps. In addition, I used a shure SM7B hoping this would be a more common point of reference for distorted guitar sounds. I spent quite a bit of time getting a reasonable sound so that the quality of the clips would not detract from the comparison between preamps.

This time I went with my Mesa Boogie Triaxis and dialed in a Master of Puppets type tone. I had a lot of trouble finding a mic position using my Peavey JSX that didn't have too much ratty buzz. I spent hours using different mics, mic positions and amp settings, but still couldn't totally eliminate the ratties. I'm going to have to think about that problem later. Once I switched to the Triaxis, I had a reasonable tone in about 30 minutes. The SM7B was placed off-axis, about 7, or 8 inches from the center cone. These clips were recorded with a Ibanez JS1000 into a Carvin Legacy 4x12 equipped with Greenbacks.

The clips were recorded in Sonar 6 with no additional processing whatsoever. I made some attempt to have the individual clips peak somewhere around -6, but I strongly encourage you to normalize levels between clips on your own system for comparison. This cannot be over stated. As you know, small changes in volume can have big impact on perception. I exported the stereo wave files in two formats, 24/96 and 16/44.1 and applied Pwr-3 dithering only on export.

If you are really serious about hearing the subtle differences between these preamps, I strongly encourage you to download the 24/96 files and play them through your studio monitors. If you absolutely must, then download the 16/44.1 files and play them on your computer, but you will have a harder time hearing the differences, guaranteed. You may post your thoughts if you wish. However, I know for some people (especially those who are very vocal about a particular preamp) this will be difficult. That's fine too. If you are worried about missing the preamp assignment, PM me right now and when I post the answers I will PM you with the key. Enjoy!

96_24

Preamp A1: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp&#..._24-Master.wav

Preamp A2: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp%2..._24-Master.wav

Preamp B1: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp%2..._24-Master.wav

Preamp B2: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp%2..._24-Master.wav


44_16

Preamp A1: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp%2..._16-Master.wav

Preamp A2: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp%2..._16-Master.wav

Preamp B1: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp%2..._16-Master.wav

Preamp B2: http://pariah-now.com/Music/Preamp%2..._16-Master.wav

Disclaimer: Look, I know this exercise has limited value in the sense that it is one particular song, one particular guitar, one particular amp, one particular mic, not a mix...you get the point. In this situation one preamp may sounds better, but in another it could very well be a different preamp that sounds better. However, I believe there is some value in hearing at least one possible outcome when using a particular preamp. You hear enough of these and after a while you may even form an educated opinion of a particular preamp (no!). Also, I've done my best to limit the number of variables, but make no claim as to the rigour of this test as compared to a true, rigidly controlled test.

EDIT:

For archival purposes, I'm going to edit in the answers for anyone who may be researching these preamps (if you don't want to know right away, scroll past):





A1 = Pacifica, no pad, gain = 5 oclock

A2 = Pacifica, pad engaged, gain = 11 oclock

B1 = Great River, impedance out, gain 45.

B2 = Great River, impedance in, gain 45.


Best Regards,

Mike.

[blaugruen7]

B2 brings most meat to the table.
i havent checked the levels.
but sound is VERY close to my ears. i take both.

[mdsmith64]

Pictures are always nice.

Can anyone guess what that blue dot is on my JS1000 between the pickups (third picture down)? If you think you know, post your answer and if you are correct, I'll PM you the answer key immediately (as long as you promise not to give them away).

Best Regards,

Mike.

[elektroglide]

I don't think one could ask for a better test method... without paying for it! http://www.gearslutz.com/board/images/smilies/thumb.gif

I'm not near my studio right now, and I couldn't hear any difference so far on the speakers I've got here. I wonder how far up the sonic food chain I'll have to go before I can hear a significant difference...

nice test - makes me wonder what the sonic differences actually are between these two, and whether the differences are more apparent on different source material.

[mdsmith64]

Originally Posted by elektroglide

I don't think one could ask for a better test method... without paying for it! http://www.gearslutz.com/board/images/smilies/thumb.gif

I'm not near my studio right now, and I couldn't hear any difference so far on the speakers I've got here. I wonder how far up the sonic food chain I'll have to go before I can hear a significant difference...

nice test - makes me wonder what the sonic differences actually are between these two, and whether the differences are more apparent on different source material.

Thank you. My pleasure. The difference is more subtle with this more over the top distortion, but in my acoustically treated room, listening through my JBL lsr28p's I still hear a difference. In fact, I still hear the -same- differences I heard in the first test which is encouraging (meaning my ears are not fooling me). Since I now know what to listen for, I can even hear the differences playing the 16/44 files on my computer listening through headphones (though I don't recommend this method).

Best Regards,

Mike.

[mdsmith64]

Originally Posted by blaugruen7

B2 brings most meat to the table.
i havent checked the levels.
but sound is VERY close to my ears. i take both.

Me too!...oh wait, I did take both! Hee, hee! Thanks for taking a listen.

Best Regards,

Mike.

[blaugruen7]

cheers to you.

i love listening to gearslutz audio.

mucho aprecciated.

[elektroglide]

Originally Posted by mdsmith64

Thank you. My pleasure. The difference is more subtle with this more over the top distortion, but in my acoustically treated room, listening through my JBL lsr28p's I still hear a difference. In fact, I still hear the -same- differences I heard in the first test which is encouraging (meaning my ears are not fooling me). Since I now know what to listen for, I can even hear the differences playing the 16/44 files on my computer listening through headphones (though I don't recommend this method).

Best Regards,

Mike.

mmm... it's relevant because I'm looking at one of these two (among a few others) as my main pre. I wonder which one is more versatile on vocal and guitar tracking... mainly electric guitar but also acoustic. your comment is invited! I'm curious as to whether it's splitting hairs in the real world of non-acoustically-treated 44.1 or worse territory...

[mdsmith64]

Hmmm...well you're kind of in a tough position in that the Pacifica has become well known for it's utility recording vocals, but so far to my ears the Great River kicks but on distorted guitars (and other peoples ears as well - see the responses to my first preamp shootout). I did try my Pacifica on my own horrible, nasally voice it did have a certain sweetness that couldn't be denied. However, I've seen people claim the Great River is great on vocals too. I did try some vocals on my Great River, but my voice is definitely not one to test with.

Regarding acoustic guitar, the Great River has an established reputation as being good on acoustics (as a quick search will show - here, this one has a clip Great River acoustic tracks ). There was one thread some time ago where someone posted a clip of a Pacifica being used on acoustic versus a Millenia preamp:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showp...2&postcount=27

On those clips, and to my ears the Millenia preamp fared better. I could be persuaded to record a few clips of an acoustic through my Great River and Pacifica preamps I suppose. Let me see what I can do. I'll either send them to you personally, or I will post them (depending on how brave I feel at that moment). Stay tuned...

Best Regards,

Mike.

[mdsmith64]

O.K., since nobody wanted to play, I'll give the answer to the picture question. It's the reflection from the famous Pacifica blue light. That thing is like a "Frikken Laser Beam" I swear, Ha!

Best Regards,

Mike.

[trustyjim]

Did the answers ever get posted for these clips?

Clip A seems to have a more cutting top, B seems to have some natural compression and makes a nice little rythm pocket for the guitar. It's possible that A would take compression better and sit in a mix better, but then again it's also possible B would fare just as well without any modification. I think as a solo instrument B is more flattering.

I am going to guess A is the Pacifica and B is the Great River.

[mdsmith64]

You, sir, have a private message....


Best Regards,

Mike.

[trustyjim]

Thanks! I really appreciate these blind tests. I think they are a great exercise for the ear.

[fuzzface777]

I heard the difference, imported at 96kbs in PT with my cheap headphones right away. I could even hear the tone of the high efficiency speaker, probably at 65-75 watts?

Anyway, I really believe the recording would have sonically been better if a sm57 used, 3-6 inches back, straight in, off center 2-4 inches (see James Lugo's miking).

Anyway the GR definitely had more lows and some bright detail, but it was a little gritty. I could hear the grit, when I allowed myself not to concentrate on the EQ or color or the playing....just the "air" so to speak. Unfortunately, all the great bass on the chugging of the guitar ALWAYS gets slashed whether live or in the studio. Lower mids may survive, strong thick mids are a must and smooth highs are plus for mixing rock guitar.

I really think the Pacifica delivers that better. lower mids, strong thick mids, high mids and smooth highs. Mids and smooth highs are very important for Metallica sound since the mids will be eq'out to extent for that effect and the highs will be eq up in the mix with most of the bass from guitar missing and filled with bass guitar.

I really dug Lugo's recordings. It wasn't anything close to Jake E Lee's vintage plexi's on Ozzy's bark at the moon, but they were nice.
my 2 cents

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by fuzzface777

I really dug Lugo's recordings. It wasn't anything close to Jake E Lee's vintage plexi's on Ozzy's bark at the moon, but they were nice.
my 2 cents

I LOVE Jake but the Bark At The Moon guitar sounds are not what I would shoot for with any recordings that I was making.....



I was not there so this could be B.S.

I hear that it was the first time Jake was ever in the studio. They set up his rig to track the guitars and they took a break for lunch or something.

They came back and Jake thought the guitar needed a little more top end so he went out to the amp and dialed up a little more presence..... and the engineer at the board started cutting the EQ on the channel.... at which point Jake walked out to the amp and added even more high end.... which the engineer took back out at the board....

The engineer didn't know that Jake was cranking the EQ on the amp and Jake didn't know the engineer was cutting it at the board.

This went on for a while until Jake ran out of EQ on the amp and he just left it that way. Most of the album was cut with the amp ripping high end and the board cutting the top.

Again not sure this is a true story but the guitars on that release are my least favorite of any Ozzy album and that includes Zack who I am not a huge fan of all in all.

[stonephar0]

I just read your your blue light quiz, we have a pacifica and it's a pretty bright light. I guess you have to have one. great comparison,

[piano]

Nice test Mike. Thank you for doing this!

The GR sounds darker (and more classic metal to me) to me and the Pacifica sounds brighter. I'm a classical pianist and I LOVE metal.

Frankly, both sound wonderfull. Personally I like the Pacifica.... at least today I do. Really, they are both super pre's ---- tough decision......


I'd like to hear the vox shoot out!

[AllAboutTone]

Both pres sound great, i would ask myself, which one sits better in a mix rather than hearing it solo, i have heard so much different gear really sound well, but when put in the mix it just does not fit as well as something thats sounds not as great, it just all depends on what you are after when its got bass and drums with it.

[Audio Hombre]

Both sound right there in the ballpark with where I'd expect them to be but in this test, I preferred the GR. The Pacifica sounded more forward and a little cloudier but still great. It's great that you have both pre's to choose from.

[shortyprs]

The thing to remember with both these pres is that you can get pretty significant changes in their tone. The GR has input and output gain controls and impedence and loading switches. You can really clean or beef that puppy up. Similarly, the Pacifica's pad lets you add some serious grit to the sound. No single listening test is going to do justice to either (although its a good start).

[ampegfreak]

Pacifica gets my vote.

[otisgood]

+1

Ot

[patrox247]

Wow! To my ears the Great River just kicked the crud out of the Pacifica. I thought they would have been a lot closer, and I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to differentiate the two, but upon listening, the GR was not only more focused, but also added a lot more weight and size. I wasn't expecting that!

[duckyboard]

nice shootout.

i prefer the pacifica.

[chandlersonic]

I like the Great River the best by far, I love the Pacifica but the gr just sounds way better in this test.

I'm not dissing the pac, I got one and I love it but I didn't think there was any contest here. B2 is just perfect for this kind of tone. Heavy guitars is not the Pacificas forte IMO, I love it for clean gits and pop-rock distorted guitars ( where you want a smooth sound that'll stay out of the way come mix time). For bad ass agressive stuff, the GR, or the TG2 would be better choices.

[Toad]

Great River gets my vote!!!

[Oroz]

Pacifica gets my vote. The Great River has a little bright sound that I dislike compared to the Pacifica.

mdsmith64, if you like Vai and Satriani (I assume you do because of your axe and amp thumbsup) you should get a Keeley modded DS-1 .

http://www.robertkeeley.com/product.php?id=10

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by chandlersonic

I like the Great River the best by far, I love the Pacifica but the gr just sounds way better in this test.

I'm not dissing the pac, I got one and I love it but I didn't think there was any contest here. B2 is just perfect for this kind of tone. Heavy guitars is not the Pacificas forte IMO, I love it for clean gits and pop-rock distorted guitars ( where you want a smooth sound that'll stay out of the way come mix time). For bad ass agressive stuff, the GR, or the TG2 would be better choices.

Interesting...I hear the GR as smoother and thicker in the low mids (clip B1). I suspect it would need more upper mids added and more low mids carved out during mix time. The Pacifica clip (A1) seems to have more presence and a tighter low end which i suspect would need less clean up in a mix. That's just the way I hear it.

Brad

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Audio Hombre

Both sound right there in the ballpark with where I'd expect them to be but in this test, I preferred the GR. The Pacifica sounded more forward and a little cloudier but still great. It's great that you have both pre's to choose from.

Originally Posted by shortyprs

The thing to remember with both these pres is that you can get pretty significant changes in their tone. The GR has input and output gain controls and impedence and loading switches. You can really clean or beef that puppy up. Similarly, the Pacifica's pad lets you add some serious grit to the sound. No single listening test is going to do justice to either (although its a good start).

Originally Posted by ampegfreak

Pacifica gets my vote.

Originally Posted by patrox247

Wow! To my ears the Great River just kicked the crud out of the Pacifica. I thought they would have been a lot closer, and I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to differentiate the two, but upon listening, the GR was not only more focused, but also added a lot more weight and size. I wasn't expecting that!

Originally Posted by duckyboard

i prefer the pacifica.

Originally Posted by chandlersonic

I like the Great River the best by far, I love the Pacifica but the gr just sounds way better in this test.

Originally Posted by Toad

Great River gets my vote!!!

Originally Posted by Oroz

Pacifica gets my vote. The Great River has a little bright sound that I dislike compared to the Pacifica.

Great googly moogly!!! Maybe we all have a slightly different sense of aesthetic and maybe we are all looking for different things in the tools we use... maybe, just maybe actually trying some of this shit in your own studio on your own time might not be a bad idea to figure out what tool is best for you... ya know instead of trying to base an important decision on the opinion of others whose work you've never heard or on clips that have absolutely zero bearing on your reality.

Just a thought... and now back to our regularly scheduled pogrom...

[chrispick]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

ya know instead of trying to base an important decision on the opinion of others whose work you've never heard or on clips that have absolutely zero bearing on your reality.

What important decision?