DAV BG-2 vs. Millennia HV-3D

[Omicron_9]

Greetings.

Last week, my BG-2 arrived. What follows is an excerpt from the e-mail I sent to Mick. Disclaimer: just one person's opinion here. I do mostly solo instrument and small chamber classical work.

I compared the BG-2 and my Millennia HV-3D in an A/B type comparison; using a matched pair of AKG 414 B-XL-II. Their self-noise is 6 dB, so this should be an effective manner in which to compare the self-noise of each pre. I still find the Millennia to have less self-noise. I wouldn't say the BG-2 is noisy, but there is a very obvious difference when A/B'ing. Output levels were matched. For instruments, I was using two different acoustic guitars; one 6-string, one 12-string. I could go into great detail about what I heard, but I think I can sum it up thus: the BG-2 was rounder, maybe larger. A bit more ... can't think of the proper term... mature? Refined? Richer? Yet being bigger sounding and with less rough edges or perhaps harshness, it didn't lose ANY detail. How is that possible? In the past, when I have heard pres which were different than the Millennia, they all lost detail. Yet the BG-2 has this refined roundness, not a colored pre by any means, and loses no detail. I'm stunned. On the 6-string, I clearly preferred the BG-2. It just sounded more like the instrument. The A/B that I performed wasn't scientific perhaps, but essentially the same mic going to each pre; levels matched; same placement from the instrument; using Mogami Neglex cables on both; when changing patterns, I used the same patterns on both mics, etc.

All that being said, I don't mean to say that I prefer it over the Millennia. My current take on this is that neither is superiour; both are equals. But different. This could change with more tracking of course, but right now, I'd say I like them equally. For me, that is huge. For the past few years, the Millennia has been my gold standard; I never thought I'd find anything I liked as well. But I think I have.

Best regards,
-O.9

[T.RayBullard]

Glad you like it bud! Your experience equals that of me and Ivo. World class, the dav!

[Plush]

Huge erection!

This person is listening well and using the English language to describe exactly what he heard.

The comparison is starkly revealing!

[T.RayBullard]

Originally Posted by Plush

Huge erection!

This person is listening well and using the English language to describe exactly what he heard.

The comparison is starkly revealing!

Plush, you are one in a million, man.

[Omicron_9]

Greetings.

Plush, thanks for the kind; yet colorful words. Forgiveness if you've mentioned this in another post, but might I ask what mics you're using w/your BG-1?

Same question for the other BG-x users?

Best regards,
-O.9

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Omicron_9

what mics you're using w/your BG-1?

Same question for the other BG-x users?

Best regards,
-O.9

Schoeps MK4V, MK21, MK2, Horch RM2J ...

[Plush]

We use any microphone with the BG range.

Particularly good matches have been:

Schoeps
Pearl CC22
AKG 451
M50

[Recording David]

Like the other guys I mainly use Schoeps, though also Josephson C42, Royer R-121 and Neumann KM-184 (when I've run out of other mics!).

I love the pairing of the Schoeps with the BG - I do not own any DPA, but I have also used 4006s with the BG and they too sound fantastic.

Omicron - Mick will appreciate your feedback. I had a long chat with him last week - such a nice guy and can talk forever about the gear!

[T.RayBullard]

I use Schoeps MK2S, MK21

AKG C426B, C422

MG m300, m930, josephson c617 with MG MK221 caps , MV220, mK250, m296..

Beyer M130/m160

U87s


Yes, Mick is a gentleman and a scholar. One of my favorite people in the world.

[PHILANDDON]

Hey O.9,

Someone as attentive to sound as you should not be tracking with AKG B-XLII. They're downright shrill. Love the AKG B-XLS on the other hand. Much flatter, more musical. Especially for the type of music you seem to be doing. The XLII is for the "cut through the mix" bullcrap.....

[fifthcircle]

Well said... I have similar feelings about my BG2. I use it in conjunction with preamps from A-Designs, Boulder, Grace, Vac Rac and others depending on the gig. I feel that it is a great sound that is different from the rest and that it stands up to all of them (even the high-priced pres).

I use mine with AKG and Schoeps stereo mics (426 and CMTS301), Schoeps and DPA omnis (4006, CMC52), Beyer 160s (great on flute and guitar), Royers, etc... I've got a pretty good mic collection here and I'll use it with any of my mics.

--Ben

[ISedlacek]

While DAV is certainly very nice preamp, I am not sure whether THAT strong „divinising“ and defending and putting other preamps in rather inferior range comparing to DAV (as we can see sometimes around here) is really good, wise and realistic and not even sometimes rather counter-productive.

I am quite sure that besides DAV there are many other nice sounding preamps. Some may cost a LOT more, some may offer a different feeling and flavour. For sure, there are also preamps that comparing to DAV sound rather dry and two dimensional (even if they sometimes cost more and have a „famous“ name). Yet, even the DAV sound is certainly not 100% perfect and is not giving a kind of universal, all encompassing sound for any existing purpose.

For recording solo instruments and vocals I actually often prefer Pendulum, since it gives an extra nice „double cream“ and a pleasant flavour.

Just recently I was carefully listening to direct AB samples Gordon/DAV – vocal with guitar.While recording, a preamp splitter was used - thus the performances were absolutely identical and listening extremely educative. While both preamps brought a nice sound performance, I could clearly notice some qualities present in Gordon that are lacking in DAV (and of course, also opposite). While Gordon performance was very relaxed, effortless and natural, DAV brought a bit more strong presence - like with a slight extra „tension“ and intimity, also tiny bit emphasising the lower frequencies – i.e. adding a touch of its own imprint and flavor to the performance. Gordon brought a bit more natural space, while DAV placed everything in its own strongly defined space. Not emphasising the lower frequencies and having less „tension“ Gordon could bring an impression of slightly „flatter“ sound. Yet, after overall repeated listenings, I got a feeling that a „relaxed“ sound may also bring more „relaxed“ mood for a listener. So I definitely cannot say DAV sounded clearly „better“ than Gordon.
My listening to these samples bringing the above mentioned impressions was blind at first – I specifically asked not to be revealed which is which. So it was a nice fun too ... But in the end I rightly guessed which is which ...
Of course, as far as the price is concerned, there is probably no competition for DAV.

I have yet to try Crane Song Flamingo (when Ibis EQ sounds that great, I can imagine that also the preamp must have something special in it), Fairman tube preamp etc. etc.

That all said, I personally am glad that I replaced my previous preamps with DAV (since in this very case DAV sounds clearly better to my ears) but I am always open to something else. Since nothing can be really perfect and universal and suit all the needs and tastes ... Including DAV.

[Tim Farrant]

This is pretty detailed stuff, good thread - you young guys - listen up!

Tim.

[Omicron_9]

Originally Posted by PHILANDDON

Hey O.9,

Someone as attentive to sound as you should not be tracking with AKG B-XLII. They're downright shrill. Love the AKG B-XLS on the other hand. Much flatter, more musical. Especially for the type of music you seem to be doing. The XLII is for the "cut through the mix" bullcrap.....

Hi Phil,

I've owned both models of the new 414s. I sold the XLS and kept the XL-II pair. Just a bit more air and detail; to my sense of aesthetics, no shrillness. Both equally good; the XL-II was just my preference. Also, in the "test" situation, the music was somewhere between classical guitar and Ralph Towner/ECM type material. Wide dynamic and frequency range; great test of both mic and pre. The 12-string which I mentioned is an extended-range 12-string baritone guitar; very piano-like in range and dynamics. Very demanding to record accurately.

However, I used the 414 pair in the aformentioned situation to compare the two pres, because that's the only matched pair of mics I own. Plus, their low self-noise was very revealing of each amp's self-noise. I also feel very familiar with the 414 XL-II, so I felt confident that I knew what I was hearing; which qualities were due to the mic and which were due to the pre, if that makes any sense.

My main mics are Gefell M930 and Gefell M295. I"ve been using both for some time and love them both. I've considered proposing marriage to the M930; if only that sort of thing were legal in my state.

Best regards,
-O.9

[Omicron_9]

Originally Posted by Recording David

Like the other guys I mainly use Schoeps, though also Josephson C42, Royer R-121 and Neumann KM-184 (when I've run out of other mics!).

I love the pairing of the Schoeps with the BG - I do not own any DPA, but I have also used 4006s with the BG and they too sound fantastic.

Omicron - Mick will appreciate your feedback. I had a long chat with him last week - such a nice guy and can talk forever about the gear!

Hi David,

Prior to posting my "findings" on the forum, I did e-mail them (in a bit longer version, in fact) to Mick. I've had some conversations with him; both via phone and e-mail. I enjoy speaking with him, and he rectified a problem with my first BG-2 in such a way as I've never seen anyone or any company do. I find him to be highly knowledgeable and respectable.

Best regards,
-O.9

[Plush]

I hear the sound of packing tape being ripped and applied to many Millenia mic amp boxes. Ship 'em out and put 'em on Ebay.

The differences between the BG and Millenia are now legendary!

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Plush

I hear the sound of packing tape being ripped and applied to many Millenia mic amp boxes. Ship 'em out and put 'em on Ebay.

The differences between the BG and Millenia are now legendary!

[Sam Lord]

Ivo, is your preamp splitter just a Y-split, or does it buffer one pre from the other? I ask because a Y would cause both to share a ground and hots, causing changes in input impedance and CMRR among other things. One would expect that to affect the sound, especially of the unit with better performance in those areas. A buffer would cause other problems... Just curious, thanks, Sam

[davebl@dircon.c]

All this sounds good. So how does a DACS Clarity fair against a BG1 say with somthing like acoustic music from Schoeps CCM4's ?

[pianoman]

I've been considering a ribbon mic and, to my sadness as a happy BG owner, have heard mixed reviews. The qualitative statement I've been hearing is that the DAV lacks bass on Royer ribbons compared with the Millenia. This is from experienced GS people who own both preamps. This is consistent with what I understand to be an impedance resonance in the bass of more than 1k ohm, where the input impedance of the preamp needs to be at least 5x higher, but the DAV impedance is 1.3k ohms. So I'd like to ask the more experienced out there --

Is there a solution which gets the great DAV sound out of ribbons and preserves all the phase, etc. information? Or, for that matter, do some of you have a contrary experience in which the DAV is indeed the big, full, round sound from the ribbons, too? In which case, which ribbons?

[lampmeister]

Good stuff Omicron_9, that chimes with my experience too.

Here I'm using 2 x BG-1's with 2 x Gefell MV692/M70 (delicious), 2 x Beyer MC834 (I'm starting to love these), 2 x DPA 4060 (very lovely) and some cheap MXL LDC and SMC and of course a few SM57's. All doing fine through the DAV's.

I concur with Plush, indeed, DAV pre's do inflameth thy libido to embarrasing proportions.



Edit: Hey Pianoman, why don't you drop Mick at DAV a note with concerns about the DAV/ribbon combination, I'm sure he'll be able to help you out in whatever way he can.

[classicalrecord]

i don't seem to have problems with missing bass using my beyer m130 with my DAV. usually if i'm at all close to the source i end up having to eq out some of the low end (to compensate for proximity effect i suppose).

[ISedlacek]

I had AEA R84 and R88 here and used DAV, TRP and Pendulum preamps with them. DAV sounded very nice, I would say the best of all these three, not lacking anything, except maybe a slight "edgy" HF spark present in TRP, which was however a bit thinner sounding. To add a HF touch is not a problem ...

[Mike Derrick]

Originally Posted by Omicron_9

Greetings.

Last week, my BG-2 arrived. What follows is an excerpt from the e-mail I sent to Mick. Disclaimer: just one person's opinion here. I do mostly solo instrument and small chamber classical work.

I compared the BG-2 and my Millennia HV-3D in an A/B type comparison; using a matched pair of AKG 414 B-XL-II. Their self-noise is 6 dB, so this should be an effective manner in which to compare the self-noise of each pre. I still find the Millennia to have less self-noise. I wouldn't say the BG-2 is noisy, but there is a very obvious difference when A/B'ing. Output levels were matched. For instruments, I was using two different acoustic guitars; one 6-string, one 12-string. I could go into great detail about what I heard, but I think I can sum it up thus: the BG-2 was rounder, maybe larger. A bit more ... can't think of the proper term... mature? Refined? Richer? Yet being bigger sounding and with less rough edges or perhaps harshness, it didn't lose ANY detail. How is that possible? In the past, when I have heard pres which were different than the Millennia, they all lost detail. Yet the BG-2 has this refined roundness, not a colored pre by any means, and loses no detail. I'm stunned. On the 6-string, I clearly preferred the BG-2. It just sounded more like the instrument. The A/B that I performed wasn't scientific perhaps, but essentially the same mic going to each pre; levels matched; same placement from the instrument; using Mogami Neglex cables on both; when changing patterns, I used the same patterns on both mics, etc.

All that being said, I don't mean to say that I prefer it over the Millennia. My current take on this is that neither is superiour; both are equals. But different. This could change with more tracking of course, but right now, I'd say I like them equally. For me, that is huge. For the past few years, the Millennia has been my gold standard; I never thought I'd find anything I liked as well. But I think I have.

Best regards,
-O.9

Omi,

Just trying to visualize in my head how you did your test...
You said you had 2 acoustic guitars.
You said you used 2 matched stereo mics.
Why not use one mic, and avoid phasing issues?
How did you get your guitars back into the exact same position for the change of preamps, (assuming and hoping you did not put up both mics together and then into separate micpreamps at the same time.)

I ask because in my experiences with micing acoustic guitars the position of the mic in relation to the acoustic instument can be a fickle and dramatic thing even over small distances, meaning even distances the size of a mic, IMHO.

So depending on how you set-up,...
some variables in the differences you hear could be from other factors other than the 2 preamps,...to have a fair evaluation I would assume you'd need to have;
- the guitar remains in same position (performer stays in same position throughout test)
- mic stays in same position (one mic preferred IMHO)
- one preamp at a time (since if you have 2 mics occupying two different locations going simultaneously to two different preamps, you will have two different sound characters coming through each mic because of their two different locations.)
- exact same gain input, same output level, (if possible)
- performer must perform each performance as exact as possible, (best to have multiple takes of the same performance for each preamp) so hopefully a short section of a song the performer has performed lots over many years so that the performances are nearly identical as possible.
- match median levels of audio files for when listening back.

could you explain in more detail your set-up?

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Mike Derrick

I ask because in my experiences with micing acoustic guitars the position of the mic in relation to the acoustic instument can be a fickle and dramatic thing even over small distances, meaning even distances the size of a mic, IMHO.

If the sound differences are such that you need to look for them with a microscope in scientific laboratory conditions, then they are most probably meaningless for a practical life and it does not matter what you use in the end (because no one will hear a difference)

Some differences are however clear and obvious immediately, in spite of the common small variables you mentioned ... These are the ones which can have some meaning and practical implications in a decisive process ...

Millennia/DAV differences belong definitely to the latter category. WHich you prefer is a matter of personal taste

[pianoman]

Originally Posted by lampmeister

Edit: Hey Pianoman, why don't you drop Mick at DAV a note with concerns about the DAV/ribbon combination, I'm sure he'll be able to help you out in whatever way he can.

Actually, I've already done this. And I'd be the first to agree that Mick is usually the most responsive vendor I've ever seen. So far Mick feels that 1300 ohms in on the DAV is perfect for ribbon mics. He did A-B in the past (I suppose on some selected mics). I've gone at this enough that I fear that if I push harder he might get annoyed, which I definitely wouldn't want.

[lampmeister]

Ah, ok Pianoman. I guess the only way to make sure is to beg/borrow/steal a DAV and put the ribbon mics you intend to use through it and give it all a good listen.

[mds]

These posts crack me up...when I bought my BG1 there wasn't a WORD about DAV on these boards. Now its such a hot topic! :-) I guess I was ahead of the curve on that one...

:-D

Mike

[pianoman]

Originally Posted by lampmeister

Ah, ok Pianoman. I guess the only way to make sure is to beg/borrow/steal a DAV and put the ribbon mics you intend to use through it and give it all a good listen.

Actually it's the other way 'round -- I own a BG-1U and a BG-2 and am seriously considering taking the plunge on buying a Royer.

[lampmeister]

Ah, I see. I don't have any Royer mics (yet) but I recently got my 2 BG-1's modded to +66db (from the standard +59db) of gain as I know I'm going to get a pair of ribbons sometime in the next year or so. I'd be interested to hear your experiences with the DAV's and the Royers or whatever ribbons you decide to go with.