Anyone have any DAV BG-1 Mic Pre samples? Better than RNP?

[Matti]

In a different league, sure.
Matti

[orville]

Tons of Dav bg1 reviews threads etc.
But also currently a test / listening poll comparing it to an HV3. Search GS you ll find it.

[Boo Boo]

Let's see...

The bg1 is an electronically balanced, chip-based amp offering two channels. On the other hand, the RNP is an electronically balanced, chip-based amp offering two channels. Hmmm...

Sounds like the same league to me.

But... on second thought... The RNP does have more gain, less noise, lower distortion, soft power management, auto muting, DI, phase invert on BOTH channels, easy connections to balanced AND unbalanced gear, channel inserts, microprocessor controlled signal LEDs...

Yeah, ya know, I take it back. The RNP *is* in a different league.

[mr.gefell]

i have not used the RNP. But the DAV is very very good. And from what i understand the grace design pre-amp is much better than the RNP, I guess the DAV would be too.

[Boo Boo]

Whether or not a Grace is "better" or "worse" than an RNP wouldn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not a bg1 is better than an RNP---at least not on my planet. I see by your "smiley" that you are perhaps now returning to yours?



[Edit: Oops. Deleted a bit that had already been quoted below. That mr. gefell is fast! Just like my RNP!]

[mr.gefell]

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

The bg1 was on my list when I was looking for a preamp. I looked it over. I listened to a few audio samples. I decided that its technical performance and design didn't meet my needs.

End of story.

Amen

[Albert]

Originally Posted by mr.gefell

Amen

Exactly. Yet another person sounding off about a product he has not used.

[mr.gefell]

Originally Posted by Albert

Exactly. Yet another person sounding off about a product he has not used.

nice...okey i had this page bookmarked some time ago

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/...=2466&alid=946

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

The bg1 was on my list when I was looking for a preamp. I looked it over. I listened to a few audio samples. I decided that its technical performance and design didn't meet my needs.

End of story.

I don´t know about RNP, but I have done quite a big practical reasearch and found that DAV BG1 sounds a way better and nicer than Millennia HV-3 (which is considered to be one of the top preamps in the clean league) in all aspects - and has also 7dB less noise floor. You can listen to some samples for example here: http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&highlight=dav
DAV sound quality belongs to the absolutely top league, period.

Have YOU tried and compared it extensively too ? If not, your conclusions may not be that helpful ...

Sorry for interrupting your statements, but I have been always a big friend of truth ...

BTW - Behringer stuff has quite an attractive design and VU meters :-)

[bigbongo]

check the above thread mp3 examples you'll hear it for yourself [ I can hear it on powerbook speakers ], the DAV is an incredible sounding pre.

BB

[T.RayBullard]

the RNP sounds like dog nuts. Twice.

Ive used it. Ive heard modified edirol ua-5s that sound much better.RNP sounds really grainy)for lack of a better word,) and the noise levels are unacceptable for recording, especially acoustic music.. the DAV is in an entirely different league. If this were calcutta and pres were the inhabitants, the RNP would be with the rest of the bhaktiyoga serving the DAV Dinner.

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

Whether or not a Grace is "better" or "worse" than an RNP wouldn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not a bg1 is better than an RNP---at least not on my planet. I see by your "smiley" that you are perhaps now returning to yours?



[Edit: Oops. Deleted a bit that had already been quoted below. That mr. gefell is fast! Just like my RNP!]

[T.RayBullard]

Originally Posted by Albert

Exactly. Yet another person sounding off about a product he has not used.

[diplomacy]
Alby, Mr. Gefell was making light of boo boo. He has a DAV and likes it. Hes a friend. Just a little cynical and blunt, and sarcastic, right Muj? He and I were actually talking about how we liked the DAV a lot yesterday.

[/diplomacy]


Ive havent heard many that didnt like the DAV honestly.

[I <3 The Beatle]

Anybody run a passive DI (like a Radial JDI) through this thing?

With the Radial JDI it'd be $1000 for 2 channels of solid pres/di's..

[adclark]

The DAV sound like a winner. I'll probably order one next month.

[cnixon]

Well, I had the RNP, sold it when my BG-1 arrived. I have the Radial JDI, sounds good to my ears through the BG-1.

[I <3 The Beatle]

Originally Posted by cnixon

Well, I had the RNP, sold it when my BG-1 arrived. I have the Radial JDI, sounds good to my ears through the BG-1.

Good to hear

If this pre is what I am hearing (and it will be a shot in the dark since there are no dealers) it will be a treat.

[Boo Boo]

Ministry of Truth, but I think I know what my needs are. If I say that the bg1 didn't meet my needs then, I assure you, that's the truth.

As for the bg1's noise level, the "truth" is listed on the DAV web site. They measure noise level as -110 dBu at 32 dB Gain over 8 KHz bandwidth. Millennia Media measure EIN at maximum gain over a 20 KHz bandwidth. For the HV-3C, the measurement made @ 60 dB gain with a 150 Ohm load resistor (10 Hz - 30 KHz) is -128 dB EIN.

Furthermore, DAV references their results to +20 dBu. I'm confused by this last point. A 0 dBu reference is the widely accepted convention; I don't understand why DAV is using a +20 dBu reference. Perhaps they just can't face the fact that under severely limited test conditions they only achieved an EIN of -110 dBu? Like I said, I'm confused by this; I'm not an EE and I'm not sure I understand what's being stated here. Maybe what's confusing me is that I just can't believe -110 dBu.

But one thing I am certain of: the bg1 is not quieter than the Millennia, and the bg1's EIN could be considerably worse than they are letting on. Sound on Sound magazine characterized the bg1 as being "quiet enough for most applications," which is what FMR Audio says about the RNP. Maybe one of the members of the Gearslutz BG1 Ministry of Truth can test their bg1 to Millennia's standard (let's call them World Class Standards), and report their findings here at Gearslutz.

Regarding the claim of 7 dB better noise floor: The thermal noise voltage of a 150 Ohm resistor, measured over a 20 KHz bandwidth is -131 dBu. That means that it is impossible for a preamp to have an EIN lower than -131 dBu with a 150 Ohm load resistor over a 20 KHz bandwidth. We've already established -128 dBu for the Millennia, and according to you the bg1 has a noise floor 7 dB lower than the Millennia. Well, -128 + (-7) = -135, which is impossible, so you might want to check your source on that one.

Regarding posted audio files: It is difficult to establish anything from the samples that I have listened to. In general I think that these audio samples are of limited usefulness. A certain guitar recording made with a certain mic may sound rolled off in the lower mids and bass to my ears, leading me to wonder if the mic is being loaded down by the bg1's input impedance. But, how can I be certain? I don't really know the conditions under which the recording is being made, and DAV does not list input impedance in their specs. So, what can be derived from this other than that some people find the sound pleasant while others find it rolled-off?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the RNP has more features, and better measured performance (in most respects) than the bg1. I was not making a subjective point. If someone wants to refute the point then they should use facts rather than posting .mp3 files. I understand that some folks like the bg1, and I'm glad that y'all are satisfied with your purchase, but your subjective opinions about its sound have no bearing on my original point. Yes?

Anyway, the bg1 craze here at Gearslutz seems like kind of a group-think phenomenon to me (and this post is turning into a book), so I think I've said all that I want to say on the subject of the bg1. If anyone can provide clarification with regards to DAV's testing methodology I would be interested in that. Otherwise...

I'm all BG'd-out.

[ISedlacek]

1) You see, theoretical "specifications" are one thing, the practical life is another thing. I simply recorded the self-noise of each preamp in various (identical) gain settings. DAV always showed cca 7 dB less ... This is a simple truth ... I am not interested in reading some papers ...

2) Of course, to judge a preamp based on listening to some posted samples may be of limited use, depending on the samples. But do you think that me or others (having and using the preamp) are commenting it according to the posted samples ? Have YOU used this preamp extensively and have YOU directly compared it to RNP ? Comparing features like "VU meters", "mute buttons", "phase on both channels" has no meaning - the sound is the only thing which matters. Otherwise even Behringer may quite satisfy you, because it looks quite attractive and has most of the features you are talking about.

I have not selected this preamp because it is cheap (the price is not a concern for me), but because it sounds very good. In the same quality level as my Pendulum MDP-1, but on extremely clean side ...

Please, do yourself a favour and for further comments work with this preamp for a while (and compare it to other preamps). You can also post some samples ... Only then your comments may have some meaning. And it is generally true about any gear (not only BG1) ...

[T.RayBullard]

who cares about posted specs??I OWN the millennia(like Ivo) and have heard them both. Ivo has tested the noise of them and found the BG to be quieter...do you own either??...the proof is in the pudding.
But one thing I am certain of: the bg1 is not quieter than the Millennia--Prove it, fella..- you arent qualified to make claims about either pre..unless you own them... and yeah, Im sure Mick lied about specs to make sales.
Actually he doesnt advertise...whats remarkable is that the pre is so good, its users are advertising for the company quite willingly.

Anyway, post something other than speculation, actually use them extensively, THEN comment. Until such time your claims are worthless. As I said, the proof is in the pudding. 3 people that own BOTH preamps have said the BG-1 is better(one of whom them who has been using the BG for years, and makes a very sucessful living using them for classical recording)...and even if the "specs" were not as good, the sonics of the BG surpass the HV according to more than one person.....what more evidence does someone need??? You dabble in published specs all you want....I prefer to listen , pres in hand, then comment...

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the RNP has more features, and better measured performance (in most respects) than the bg1. I was not making a subjective point. If someone wants to refute the point

who cares??I have used the RNP! It sounds like ass! Not even in the same league as DAV or Millennia.

Enjoy that RNP.








.

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

Ministry of Truth, but I think I know what my needs are. If I say that the bg1 didn't meet my needs then, I assure you, that's the truth.

As for the bg1's noise level, the "truth" is listed on the DAV web site. They measure noise level as -110 dBu at 32 dB Gain over 8 KHz bandwidth. Millennia Media measure EIN at maximum gain over a 20 KHz bandwidth. For the HV-3C, the measurement made @ 60 dB gain with a 150 Ohm load resistor (10 Hz - 30 KHz) is -128 dB EIN.

Furthermore, DAV references their results to +20 dBu. I'm confused by this last point. A 0 dBu reference is the widely accepted convention; I don't understand why DAV is using a +20 dBu reference. Perhaps they just can't face the fact that under severely limited test conditions they only achieved an EIN of -110 dBu? Like I said, I'm confused by this; I'm not an EE and I'm not sure I understand what's being stated here. Maybe what's confusing me is that I just can't believe -110 dBu.

But one thing I am certain of: the bg1 is not quieter than the Millennia, and the bg1's EIN could be considerably worse than they are letting on. Sound on Sound magazine characterized the bg1 as being "quiet enough for most applications," which is what FMR Audio says about the RNP. Maybe one of the members of the Gearslutz BG1 Ministry of Truth can test their bg1 to Millennia's standard (let's call them World Class Standards), and report their findings here at Gearslutz.

Regarding the claim of 7 dB better noise floor: The thermal noise voltage of a 150 Ohm resistor, measured over a 20 KHz bandwidth is -131 dBu. That means that it is impossible for a preamp to have an EIN lower than -131 dBu with a 150 Ohm load resistor over a 20 KHz bandwidth. We've already established -128 dBu for the Millennia, and according to you the bg1 has a noise floor 7 dB lower than the Millennia. Well, -128 + (-7) = -135, which is impossible, so you might want to check your source on that one.

Regarding posted audio files: It is difficult to establish anything from the samples that I have listened to. In general I think that these audio samples are of limited usefulness. A certain guitar recording made with a certain mic may sound rolled off in the lower mids and bass to my ears, leading me to wonder if the mic is being loaded down by the bg1's input impedance. But, how can I be certain? I don't really know the conditions under which the recording is being made, and DAV does not list input impedance in their specs. So, what can be derived from this other than that some people find the sound pleasant while others find it rolled-off?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the RNP has more features, and better measured performance (in most respects) than the bg1. I was not making a subjective point. If someone wants to refute the point then they should use facts rather than posting .mp3 files. I understand that some folks like the bg1, and I'm glad that y'all are satisfied with your purchase, but your subjective opinions about its sound have no bearing on my original point. Yes?

Anyway, the bg1 craze here at Gearslutz seems like kind of a group-think phenomenon to me (and this post is turning into a book), so I think I've said all that I want to say on the subject of the bg1. If anyone can provide clarification with regards to DAV's testing methodology I would be interested in that. Otherwise...

I'm all BG'd-out.

[hgen]

Dav BG1 is high end, just read the reviews if you don't believe what we say. It has WOW factor in spades.

The RNP is a bit better than the Behringer ad8000 but its close. We were quite surprised at how good the ad8000 sounded in the a/b test we did. Not alot in it actually.

The Dav is in a whole different league. That's why they record orchestra's with them, its been the prefered weapon of choice for decades for this application.

[mr.gefell]

not to heat up the discussion, if the specs. is the main argument for buying pre's

we's all buy Gordon mic pre or




Mackie XDR's



tutt

[leifislive]

@boo boo:

hi,

get or organize or whatever yourself both units, get a passive mic splitter or a y cable and find out for yourself and - please - post the resulting .wav or .mp3 files.
note, that the mesured noise floor or selfnoise of any unit cannot be directly transferred into the subjective loudness, even if it is measured according to the same filters.

find out and tell us.

best,

leif

[Boo Boo]

1) The EIN figures published by Millenia aren't intended to be "theoretical," they are the results of tests. The parameters of those tests have been carefully specified. You, on the other hand have not specified how you've conducted your test of self noise. For all I know your house wiring isn't properly grounded. Or, perhaps you tested self-noise by leaving the inputs of the preamp unterminated. To call this "truth" is a joke.

2) My pointing out the *realities* with regards to thermal noise---that there is finite limit below which a preamp can't be made quieter---hopefully might indicate something to you: Either Millennia is lying about their numbers, or they are improperly conducting their tests, or there are factors that are affecting the results of your tests. Care to guess which of those is more likely?

I have no reason to doubt either that Millennia's numbers are good, or that you are indeed observing a -7 dBu noise difference between preamps in an uncontrolled test. Both are probably true. But, Millennia's numbers are useful because they are carefully specified under laboratory conditions; your number is, for all intents, useless to anyone but you.

3) If one can only comment on the bg1 after having a chance to evaluate it over the long term, then why are you posting the audio files? What are you trying to prove? It's kinda interesting that you are now turning my own argument against me. I'm the guy that didn't want to comment on the bg1 because I felt there was no way for me to know why a certain audio sample might sound a certain way. Remember? You are arguing in a circle.

My original post on this thread made a simple point: The RNP has more features, a better technical specification, and is less expensive. That's not a subjective point; either you can refute it, or you can't. You haven't.

Still, you felt the need to "correct" me out of your concern for the "truth," in effect implying that something I said was false without your having to actually prove it.

I'm unaware of any false statement on my part, and I am not offering subjective criticism of the bg1's performance. It seems to me the purpose of this group is for people to share what they know. I hope you won't feel compelled to "correct" me, and impose your personal version of "truth," every time I do so.

Thanks.

[classicalrecord]

i'll just point out that i use the dav pre's for recording classical music with huge dynamic shifts and just for kicks i've boosted quiet parts 20-25dB to check for noise and the pre is dead silent. i don't really care about specs since i crank my BG2 up to 66dB of gain with ribbon mics and never hear any noise from the pre.
again--- real world applications matter most.

[classicalrecord]

oh yah, and why continue to point out things that have nothing to do with how the pre sounds??? isn't that the most important thing here---- maybe i've missed something... ehh, oh well.

[Boo Boo]

I've read quite a few of your archived posts. You sound like a Sales Shack to me. One thing's for sure, you don't let one little thing slide, do ya. Keep those eyes peeled. Ready to pounce. Rushing to defend the bg1 orthodoxy. "The bg1 SMOKES the Grace!"

That's some funny stuff.

The thing that all of you rabid defenders of the bg1 faith seem to have missed in your desperation to stomp out any sign of heresy is that I didn't really say anything negative about the bg1. I don't really have an opinion about it at all, except for those weird noise specs, and even then it's only because I'm not quite sure what they mean.

I posted saying that the RNP and bg1 were the same general type of preamp (i.e. transformerless, based on IC chips, etc.), and that the RNP had better features, and better specs. I said nothing about the performance of the bg1 aside from pointing out the areas the RNP is "better." [And I'm still not entirely confident about the noise.]

So what are y'all getting so upset about, huh? Feeling a little defensive?

You might want to remember that it is DAV that is publishing the specs of the bg1. DAV are the ones that conducted those tests. Not me. Obviously, they feel that it's important, even if you don't.

DAV says, "The noise spec is thus."

I say, "The noise spec is thus."

And you assholes start howling, "How dare you say that! You can't comment if you haven't owned one! Heretic!"

Look... I didn't say it, OK? I didn't say the bg1 had a worse noise figure than a Millennia. DAV said that. Is it sinkin' in yet? DAV says that a bg1 is noisier than a Millennia.

So send your hatemail to them. fuuck

[T.RayBullard]

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

Look... I didn't say it, OK? I didn't say the bg1 had a worse noise figure than a Millennia.

But one thing I am certain of: the bg1 is not quieter than the Millennia

Maybe one of the members of the Gearslutz BG1 Ministry of Truth can test their bg1 to Millennia's standard (let's call them World Class Standards), and report their findings here at Gearslutz.


We have...its called listening. Not only that, but measuring the noise floor(as ivo did) produced a lower noise than the Millennia....

Do I advertise for the DAV??hell yes I do. It is a product that, until now ,hadnt gotten any advertisement. It is great for those who cant afford the other "boutique" pres but want a sound that will rival/better them. I consider that a service to the community. Saving people money is always good. Me, for example..I spent a lot of money on the millennia and found out later about the dav.

Get the pres, test them yourself, then comment. Specs are nice and all, as is discussion about numbers and technical details...but the sound is all that matters in the end.

And talk about noisy! test the FMR if you want to see noise.
To test the pre..
easiest way is to put the pads in[this puts a resistive load across the input of the amp.to measure the noise of any amp the input should be loaded with approximately the output impedance of the amp or mic feeding it. Dont use mics. Mic internal noise and ambient noise will skew the results. All you need is a resistive load.

[ISedlacek]

I have no laboratory, I am no scientist, I just record my music. My concerns are only practical. Regarding the noise - I would apprecciate if my recording equipment adds as little noise as possible to the recorded sound, especially since I often record very quiet music (and for sure any audio device produces some level of noise).

My findings can be just relative, no absolute values. Correct me if I am completely wrong:

If I have nothing connected to my digital input within my DAW and record, the recorded take will have a volume very close to zero.

If I connect and switch on an AD convertor, some noise will be already added and its level can be compared to the level without AD connected. Since there is nothing else connected, the noise can be directly attributed to the AD convertor, am I right ?
I used to have Mytek stereo AD - its noise level was quite high (perceivable in this way): around -84dB
When I "record" plain Lavry, it shows around -100 dB.
Is my reasoning still correct, when I say that Lavry is less noisy than Mytek ?

(if I reasonably increase the gain of the recorded takes, I can clearly "hear" the noise of both).

Now, if I add a preamp and connect its outputs to the AD (with no microphones connected), the volume of the "recorded take" reasonably increases - and now I can hear the sum of noise (preamp and AD) which will be added to whatever I record (still not considering the microphone noise). The preamp noise will always increase with higher gain settings.

Now I connect preamp A and preamp B, each to a different AD ouput, set both preamps to identical gain settings and record two takes. And it shows that the noise volume of the recorded takes is not identical. Since it is within the same AD, my reasoning says that the difference is attributed to the preamps.

Then I record few more takes with various gain settings (always identical on both preamps) - from minimum to maximum.
In all cases preamp A constantly shows cca 7 dB less noise volume than preamp B.
Following a simple logic, I say: in practice, preamp A is cca 7dB less noisy than preamp B.
(interestingly enough, the same thing shows if I change preamp B for its clone on separate units - Origins).

On the other hand, if I do the same with Pendulum MDP-1, it shows 5 dB less noise than preamp A - so it is still a bit quieter.

I did all this, since someone mentioned that his DAV shows some reasonable level of noise (higher in one channel) and asked me to check mine ...

My exploration was directed towards a practical noise, not theoretical. I just wanted to find out and hear what (audible) noise volume will preamp A and preamp B (and also C) add to my recording. And I clearly heard it. That´s all ... I am not interested in reading papers with (laboratory) specifications etc. from a simple reason - I record a real music.

Now, if you clearly explain to me why all this is completely wrong, I will humbly accept it ...

BTW - to compare the quality of preamps by the number of mute and phase switches, size of VU meters, button designs etc. is a bit funny. It is very easy to make a great looking box. But to make a great sounding box is quite difficult and rare ... Whatever is its look, the latter case will be always apprecciated 1000 times more by people who create music ...

[leifislive]

to do it "scientifically" I would plug the same microphone to both units and adjust the gain to a fixed signal from a speaker or plug in any other constant voltage source to ensure that the final output of bot units is the same. I would then unplug the microphone or the voltage source and replace it with two resistors (and use different pairs of 150, 300 and so on ohm) and then record both units.

my approach...

any critics at your approach Ivo will be that you don't have a prove, that your gain is identical on both units besides the fact that it claims to be by the manufactures scaling, in case I understood everything correctly, or didn't I?

on the other hand, I doubt very much that the preamp noise floor is relevant for anything besides using ribbons and recording environment sounds... any microphone or audience is creating more noise. for close micing of guitar cabs or drums it is completely irrelevant... my opinion

keep on digging

best,

leif