Millenia HV3 vs. Broadhurst Gardens

[wanderer]

Hello
I was convinced to buy a Millenia hv 3 for a pair of dpa 4006TL. Anyway, I've been reading comments that many of you prefer, in classical recording (especially for piano and chamber music, which is the repertoire I will record), the preamps Broadhurst Gardens, which incidentally are much cheaper. Before I decide, I´d like to know your opinion.
In another thread I was advised the Aurora option (or Mytek)-Millennia. Which converter option seems good for the Broadhurst Gardens? Would also Aurora be nice? (I handle Pro Tools, but I could use other daw)
Thanks

[klaukholm]

Either one will let you make excellent recordings.
If I were you, I would choose the DAV and get an alternate pair of mics.

[The Listener]

I was "lured" into buying DAV BG1U from hearing excellent audio clips form the forum member ISedlacek and I don't regret it. It is an excellent preamp, but really close in sound to other similarly designed (chip-based) good quality clean preamps as found in contemporary interfaces like Steinberg MR816, TC Konnekt 48, etc.

On the other hand I heard (but never used!) really outstanding sound from Crookwood and Forssell preamps and converters - I would suggest to try those out if money is not an objection.

Again - the clips from ISedlacek were most illustrative what those devices can do. I would definitely try those out if I was in a position to make such a purchase now.

[0VU]

Having owned and used both a BG1 and an HV3, if you're wedded to your 4006s I'd suggest a Crookwood Paintpot. Iirr, it's more expensive than a DAV but cheaper than a Milennia and imo preferable to both. However, these things are highly subjective and all three are excellent preamps. What I prefer and what you/others may prefer are unlikely to be identical, and the way each of us works also can influence the choice of equipment, e.g. I like remote controlled preamps which can reduce mic level cable runs. For A-D conversion, I normally use dCS, Weiss, or occasionally Prism but Crookwood also do a very good (and reasonably priced) optional ADC for their preamps which might be useful. Either way, if you can find a way, it'd be a good idea to try them all in your application, and with your own working practices and ears.

Despite recommending the Crookwood, I'd also go along with klaukholm's suggestion that, with the price of a DAV BG1, you could get that and perhaps afford some alternative mics. That'd give you more flexibility thaqn any one pair of mics and preamp.

[Audiop]

Would it be okay if I mention Line Audio 8MP once again? :-)

Runs with the big boys at a fraction of the cost.

I looped Ivo's Agnus Dei thru a 8MP and could not hear a difference on the original and loop file.

I think that is pretty good performance.


/Peter

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Would it be okay if I mention Line Audio 8MP once again? :-)

Runs with the big boys at a fraction of the cost.

I looped Ivo's Agnus Dei thru a 8MP and could not hear a difference on the original and loop file.

I think that is pretty good performance.


/Peter

Well, that's not some test for a preamp, isn't it? Recording an acoustic source in a nice ambient with it would be much more indicative... You being from Sweden (the same as that company) and one of the few to repeat that is a bit suspicious, though. Some hype around here can help sell a few units, but at least supply some really good sounding audio clips to get more attention.

From the specs it looks really good, I guess it sounds pretty similar to most contemporary chip-based preamps... It is surely useful but with all those nice preamps (and even 4 or 8 of them) in contemporary interfaces this looks more like a cheap but good preamp "extension" for larger projects...

Direct comparison of the same performance recording with something like Forssell SMP-2 would be something completely different. To my taste DAV BG1 preamp didn't sound equally great compared to SMP-2 in Ivo's clips, but it is none the less very nice and useful preamp.

[Don S]

For piano and 4006's I'd go with a Pacifica. Although, as mentioned above, either of the 2 you asked about will yield great results.
Others to consider:
Crookwood
Forssell
Grace

[tamasdragon]

The real question is really for example millenia is better than the dav? Of course it is subjective, but many have found that the dav may be better. And, much cheaper, so I think there is no question, dav.

[ISedlacek]

I have extensively used both preamps. These are my personal impressions and experience. Millennia HV3 is said to be a "transparent" preamp, but I am afraid it is not. To me, it has a bit edgy highs and slightly scooped lows and the 3D soundstage is a bit limited. I would describe a general feeling as a bit "arid". As if the original sound source loses it's joy of life a bit ...

I actually replaced my Millennia preamps by DAV preamps later. In a way it sounded slightly better. DAV has an instant "sweet" sound and a bit "syrupish" character, that appeals on some things. At the same time it emphasises the low end a bit and the higher frequency spectrum is not that balanced. In general, it gives slightly "compressed" , ready-made feeling.

Then I tried quite a lot of other preamps in my search and found the ultimate contenders in two preamps (that to my ears sound in slightly different league than the previous two):

Forssell SMP-2 and Thermionic Culture Earlybird 2.2

If you could try any of them, it could be maybe uselful. Out of these two I consider SMP-2 as more universal. To me, it sounds like a big open window that captures any source with incredible reality, depth and details ...

Just found two short choir samples , one recorded with HV-3 the other with SMP-2

KYRIE - Millennia HV-3 preamp

KYRIE - Forssell SMP-2 preamp

I just would like to specially ask Mr. Audiop, not to start analysing them or to commence some theoretical disputes (sure they are imperfect from the scientific point of view, but they are as they are). Thank you for understanding.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Just found two short choir samples , one recorded with HV-3 the other with SMP-2

KYRIE - Millennia HV-3 preamp

KYRIE - Forssell SMP-2 preamp

Arrrgghh! You just reminded me again how badly I want one of those blue bastards! That's THE sound. I tweak and tweak recordings to only end up with poor approximations of that. Open sound, but so soft and yet dynamic, such nice midrange, clear lower mids, aahh... I think I'll sell my Toft ATC-2 and DAV BG1U, sacrifice two extra preamp channels and nice EQ on Toft to get Forsell SMP-2 in the next months... that right here is pure gearslutism. Or maybe I should breathe slowly and come to my senses.

[didier.brest]

Hi Ivo,
I already have got these samples and put them in my 'Hits' directory, not for the preamp, just for the music. I just listened again to them and can hear only now that the Forsell take is better. But the OP asks for a comparison between the DAV and the Millenia. I've got these ones back from my HD that you may be the author of, are'nt you?

[ISedlacek]

Oh, you are a nice archive caretaker Seems these are also coming from me ... I have tons of DAV/Millennia/Forssell/Flamingo/Crookwood comparisons, but they are hidden somewhere in the computer cellar departments ... Would have to search there ... My impressions are not based on one standalone comparison ...

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Well, that's not some test for a preamp, isn't it?

Of course it is. If a pre is not transparent or a fine performer in such a test it can not be better with a mic connected to it. You test everything except the 48V supply this way.

Recording an acoustic source in a nice ambient with it would be much more indicative...

That's another option but if a preamp can not perform in a loop test it can not shine anyway. I'm interested in how the signal is treated when it pass thru a device. The only way to test that is to compare the output signal to the input signal.

You being from Sweden (the same as that company) and one of the few to repeat that is a bit suspicious, though. Some hype around here can help sell a few units, but at least supply some really good sounding audio clips to get more attention.

First, I have supplied clips and second.. you give me this but jump up and down after Ivo recommends a preamp he is a retailer of?? There's a bunch of guys around the world that speaks warmly about Line Audio products, I happen to live in the same country and I don't know what that has to do with the subject.

From the specs it looks really good,

And it is. In contrast to many other pieces out there the unit also perform as advertized. I measure all my gear and put them thru blind tests when possible.

I also talk warmly about Earthworks mic's, Lynx converters, Sennhesier mic's, Seas and Scan Speak speakers.. none of which is made in my country. I'm not a retailer and I don't know anyone that make the gear I buy or use.

You're attitude is not really called for.

I guess it sounds pretty similar to most contemporary chip-based preamps... It is surely useful but with all those nice preamps (and even 4 or 8 of them) in contemporary interfaces this looks more like a cheap but good preamp "extension" for larger projects...

It has a discrete class A input and a chip later in the chain in contrast to ex. the DAV which is a chip amp.


/Peter

[BrianHanke]

There's a bunch of guys around the world that speaks warmly about Line Audio products, I happen to live in the same country and I don't know what that has to do with the subject.

C'mon Peter, we all know you get a cut of the profits from every single product manufactured and sold in your country.

Just found two short choir samples , one recorded with HV-3 the other with SMP-2

KYRIE - Millennia HV-3 preamp

KYRIE - Forssell SMP-2 preamp

Interesting piece of music! These are two different takes though, correct?

[didier.brest]

I've got the DAV BG1 but not the Millenia. Here attached some old piano clips found on my HD for comparing the DAV BG1 with the Fearn VT-2. The mics are FLEA 49.

There are also other ones here where the mics are Brauner Valvet.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by BrianHanke

Interesting piece of music! These are two different takes though, correct?

Sure, but we are not talking of the performance, but of the overall sound, with exactly the same settings etc.

[BrianHanke]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Sure, but we are not talking of the performance, but of the overall sound, with exactly the same settings etc.

Cool, just checking. Thanks as always for sharing your tests with us!

[Plush]

The d.a.v. electronics Broadhurst Gardens mic amps are Decca mic amps.

They are outstanding and reasonably priced.
The thing that people forget is that Decca Records already qualified this mic amp after many comparisons.

Why do we need to re-qualify it?

[hughesmr]

+1 for the DAV. "Slightly sweet with a touch of syrup" is actually a very good metaphor for the character of this unit (compared to a more "transparent" pre like Forsell or Earthworks). That's not to say DAV isn't clean because it is, but it just has a really nice vibe on a lot of classical material. Mine sounded a touch hard for the first several hours of work, but then seemed to "sweeten" up nicely.

Another brand not yet mentioned (nor often mentioned) but is great gear are the Benchmark boxes. The MPA1 is their current 2-ch offering, but the 4-ch PRE420 is good bang for the buck for the on-board feature set. Worth a look --

Benchmark Media | DAC1, ADC1, PRE420, System 1000

And no, I am not a Benchmark dealer.

[James Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Plush

The d.a.v. electronics Broadhurst Gardens mic amps are Decca mic amps. They are outstanding and reasonably priced. The thing that people forget is that Decca Records already qualified this mic amp after many comparisons.

Why do we need to re-qualify it?

You don't have to requalify it Plush.

Because your repeated implication that there still exists somewhere a band of white-coated Decca gnomes locked away in an underground laboratory testing every pre-amp released on the market since 1970 and doing all the hard-work of listening for us is already starting to wear a little thin on this Forum.

[The Listener]

Of course it is. If a pre is not transparent or a fine performer in such a test it can not be better with a mic connected to it. You test everything except the 48V supply this way.

Fine if you like to do that, but it is not MUCH of a test for me. Especially in that context it looked like you try to say that it shows that looping back audio recorded through another preamp and not noticing the difference should be some sort of comparative validation that it works equally well. Hence my reaction.

That way you test line level signal at best and get no information how this thing really works in a real world application with mics and acoustic sources... Or am I missing something? That's all I wanted to say. You can mesaure, loop, do whatever of course, but the sound is what interests me (us?).

That's another option but if a preamp can not perform in a loop test it can not shine anyway. I'm interested in how the signal is treated when it pass thru a device. The only way to test that is to compare the output signal to the input signal.

Yes, like I said - in my logic I would set priorities the other way around - recording of an acoustic source with microphones being more important test than re-recording audio through it.

First, I have supplied clips and second.. you give me this but jump up and down after Ivo recommends a preamp he is a retailer of?? There's a bunch of guys around the world that speaks warmly about Line Audio products, I happen to live in the same country and I don't know what that has to do with the subject.

It was just an observation, it is not so unusual to be associated with the company from your country/state... I was given substantial discounts by some small local manufacturers, just to use their products and spread the word, not much wrong with it, if you are open about it. If you say you have no association whatsoever with that company, fine, I believe you.

I would really like to hear some clips, can you post a link maybe? I tried "search" and couldn't find any.

btw - I was enthusiastic about Forssell because of the sound clips and I researched it around the net and other forums too and listened to whatever I could. It just consistenly sounds so "sonorous" in all the clips and I happen to have similar preferences as Ivo, he is unknowingly (?) sort of reliable "beta tester" for some of us who appreciate similar things. Is he really a retailer for Forssell in EU? Must check the price with him then.

btw - DAV are great preamps, but if I can live with only two channels of great preamps at the moment and the rest gets filled in by the interface preamps that are suprisingly similar to DAV, I just might go for the thing which sound gives me goose bumps... I was not surprised when I started using DAV, it performed exactly as advertised and as I expected from Ivo's clips. I already then compromised, because I wanted Forssell, but could only afford DAV... If the former turns out to be what I expect from Ivo's clips, than "this is IT" as MJ would say.

And also @Plush - DAV BG range being DECCA heritage - well, it is... but most (or should I speak for myself) associate "THE" Decca sound with their releases from the late 50's till 70's that have nothing to do with those products... I specifically associate "Decca sound" with recordings by Kenneth Wilkinson who is credited on all the Britten albums I have and which are my ultimate classical reference. Saying that, I don't diss the DAV products, they are very fine and mine paid for itself already.

[Plush]

Originally Posted by James Lehmann

You don't have to requalify it Plush.

Because your repeated implication that there still exists somewhere a band of white-coated Decca gnomes locked away in an underground laboratory testing every pre-amp released on the market since 1970 and doing all the hard-work of listening for us is already starting to wear a little thin on this Forum.

Hello James,

Wow, YOu've given me good language here. I really DO wish that there were still white coated John Culshaw era Decca engineering department people checking each mic amp.
Sadly that golden era is passed.

However, I'm the original d.a.v. electronics Broadhurst Gardens freak. The BG range really does have a Decca heritage and it is a Decca design. There is no getting around that.

Mick Hinton was THERE at the creation of the last used IN HOUSE Decca mic amp design. He is the manufacturer of the Broadhurst Gardens mic amps.

How is my cry for excellence wearing thin? The Decca Records engineering department chose the Hinton design to answer their request for a low noise and low distortion mic amp for digital recording.

That is why I say it is pre-qualified.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Fine if you like to do that, but it is not MUCH of a test for me. Especially in that context it looked like you try to say that it shows that looping back audio recorded through another preamp and not noticing the difference should be some sort of comparative validation that it works equally well. Hence my reaction.

It's very good start. Any noise, frequency response problems or distortion added/subtracted to the signal will be apparent in a well performed test of this kind.

If a transmission link can not handle this test and your goal is transparency there's no need going further.. next contender! :-)

That way you test line level signal at best and get no information how this thing really works in a real world application with mics and acoustic sources... Or am I missing something? That's all I wanted to say. You can mesaure, loop, do whatever of course, but the sound is what interests me (us?).

Not line level. You attenuate the signal and apply gain in the preamp. The preamp has no idea where the voltage comes from. It only reacts at the voltage on the input, period.

So yes, you are missing things. The sound of the gear is what you examine this way. You can not put a link in a chain and learn about the gear itself. There may be compensational effects of between the links and you have no way of knowing the actual performance.

Yes, like I said - in my logic I would set priorities the other way around - recording of an acoustic source with microphones being more important test than re-recording audio through it.

When testing gear, one method does not exclude the other.. ;-)

It was just an observation, it is not so unusual to be associated with the company from your country/state... I was given substantial discounts by some small local manufacturers, just to use their products and spread the word, not much wrong with it, if you are open about it.

And you assumed I was not open with it??

If you say you have no association whatsoever with that company, fine, I believe you.

Fine!

I would really like to hear some clips, can you post a link maybe? I tried "search" and couldn't find any.

I'll take a look.


/Peter

[wanderer]

Hi, Peter
I´d also like to hear some clips.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Not line level. You attenuate the signal and apply gain in the preamp. The preamp has no idea where the voltage comes from. It only reacts at the voltage on the input, period.

Yes, it passess through the preamp, but you don't have to apply much gain and we can do that test with any clean preamp and it would be impossible to tell apart in ABX... on the other hand - how it handles microphones is a completely different thing, isn't it? Much more obvious and important for a real recording situation. I found another test where you recorded a clip with Earthworks preamp and only re-recorded the file with Line Audio preamp, I think that if you would record the same source with the same mic and a splitter through both preamps simultanously would be a much more useful test to most. Now we only know that Earthworks preamp sounds nice and that re-recording through Line Audio doesn't do damage to an already nice sounding audio.

I did splitted tests with DAV and TC K48 internal preamps and I can't "win" ABX... although there is subjectively nicer character to DAV and a bit nicer midrange, but not substantially...

I'm looking forward to hearing some "first generation" audio recorded through those preamps...

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Yes, it passess through the preamp, but you don't have to apply much gain

Well that would depend on the input level and how you twist the knobs right? :-)
I used about 30dB gain which is pretty much representative of the higher end of gain I use with my mic's.

and we can do that test with any clean preamp and it would be impossible to tell apart in ABX...

In which case the amp is well designed and everything is good. I strongly doubt that "all" preamps can pass such a test though.

on the other hand - how it handles microphones is a completely different thing, isn't it?

Not at all. The mic puts a voltage at the inputs, period. The "problem" lies at the mic side where some mic's (not all) are sensitive to the load they see, but that is testing the mic's and not the preamp. Much confusion in this area among users.

I found another test where you recorded a clip with Earthworks preamp and only re-recorded the file with Line Audio preamp, I think that if you would record the same source with the same mic and a splitter through both preamps simultanously would be a much more useful test to most.

I will do such tests when I have a splitter = soon allthough that scenario means problems for some of the things you bring up. The load becomes different hence affecting the mic differently than when the mic feeds one pre at the time.

Now we only know that Earthworks preamp sounds nice and that re-recording through Line Audio doesn't do damage to an already nice sounding audio.

Yes, isn't that nice? :-)

I'm looking forward to hearing some "first generation" audio recorded through those preamps...

I'll see what I can do down the road but the problem with such tests is that you are cluesless as to what causes the sound you hear. Performance, room and microphones is what we hear mostly. The preamp may be perfect but if the recording is mediocre you won't really learn much.

Testing gear in isolation is very smart if you want to learn about the gear and be in control.

Thanks for interesting discussion!


/Peter

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Audiop

I'll see what I can do down the road but the problem with such tests is that you are cluesless as to what causes the sound you hear. Performance, room and microphones is what we hear mostly. The preamp may be perfect but if the recording is mediocre you won't really learn much.

That's true, but it at least gives a glimpse how it works. I appreciate when someone goes to such extent as to record different instruments and posts many clips, so some pattern establishes... If something sounds consistently good, it is good, but of course there are so many variables to consider... It is best to get it in the studio to test, but with those remote "boutique" and small manufacturers without a distribution net it is not so easy to do so if you are not some bigger fish they choose to indulge with a demo unit...

[Audiop]

Good point.

I really like to learn as much as possible about the gear and that means measurements, loop tests, real world use (duh!) and also listen to other peoples recordings. Hopefully all that together puts you in a better position to chose the right gear for your work.

I would not rely on a brand or piece of gear just because some famous person or company use it or speak warmly about it though, well with the possible exception if you know for yourself from earlier experience that it has some value.

For example I would not jump on a DAV expecting it to be a perfect amp just because Decca used, designed or approved it.

OTOH there's a person in my town who has designed and tested gear for decades, him I trust and I could possibly even buy a product on his recommendation. He has more knowledge about audio (on both sides of the media) than any person I've talked to irl or on the net.


/Peter

[Gravity]

Maybe I need my Gearslut badge taken away, but I'm having difficulty hearing enough of a difference between those two (at least in these particular clips with this particular choir) to make a choice either way. If anything the HV3 sounds perhaps a bit more strident... But I'd have to be pushed to make that call.... Both sound quite excellent at any rate! I'd take whichever I could get for $10 cheaper, or whichever looked prettier! (I gotta admit I'm a sucker for the piano-black Millennia styling)

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

I have extensively used both preamps. These are my personal impressions and experience. Millennia HV3 is said to be a "transparent" preamp, but I am afraid it is not. To me, it has a bit edgy highs and slightly scooped lows and the 3D soundstage is a bit limited. I would describe a general feeling as a bit "arid". As if the original sound source loses it's joy of life a bit ...

I actually replaced my Millennia preamps by DAV preamps later. In a way it sounded slightly better. DAV has an instant "sweet" sound and a bit "syrupish" character, that appeals on some things. At the same time it emphasises the low end a bit and the higher frequency spectrum is not that balanced. In general, it gives slightly "compressed" , ready-made feeling.

Then I tried quite a lot of other preamps in my search and found the ultimate contenders in two preamps (that to my ears sound in slightly different league than the previous two):

Forssell SMP-2 and Thermionic Culture Earlybird 2.2

If you could try any of them, it could be maybe uselful. Out of these two I consider SMP-2 as more universal. To me, it sounds like a big open window that captures any source with incredible reality, depth and details ...

Just found two short choir samples , one recorded with HV-3 the other with SMP-2

KYRIE - Millennia HV-3 preamp

KYRIE - Forssell SMP-2 preamp

I just would like to specially ask Mr. Audiop, not to start analysing them or to commence some theoretical disputes (sure they are imperfect from the scientific point of view, but they are as they are). Thank you for understanding.

[The Listener]

With my renewed interest in Forssell SMP-2 preamp I found this very interesting shoot-out:

Dubravko Lapaine: Recording for Kosmopterix – part 4A | Facebook