Topic: Preamp comparison: Portico vs V3 vs SD722

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

While I think recording a hifi is useful, I don't consider it a substitute for a live source or a real 3d soundstage. 

I completely agree.   If I had access to enough duplicate gear, I would love to do a comp in the field.

I tend to discount comparisons that have a single sample from different nights but I think that it's possible over extended experience to discern the qualities unique to particular pieces of equipment.  What I heard between the posted V3 and 722 samples is pretty much in line with my perception of the various V3 and 722 field recordings I've made.  What I heard between the Neve and V3 samples confirms what I thought I heard when first played back the only Portico field recording I've made to date. 

This isn't the last word in comparisons but I wanted to try something.  I did this comp on the end of another comp I was running.  That one has a lot more samples, a different variable under test, and I if I think I can hear a difference I'll post that comp too.

[ghellquist]

I rated them C, A, B, D.   

Exactly in RMS order. Too exact if you ask me to be a pure coincidence.

Scientists has found in practical tests done on control groups that most listeners will preferr the loudest source.

I do not in any way want to detract from your test, this is a very good test. Only lacking in a small final step, adjusting to exactly same level. I just wish I had some web space, then I would help other listeners to make that comparison.

As for your conclusions they are of course totally valid for you. I get to the same conclusion listening to the raw file. When I listen to the normalized versions the difference to me is really small. I actually find it difficult to differentiate between the four pre amps. Now I might be deaf as there is nothing wrong with my equipment (top end DA, speakers and headphones).

Gunnar

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I'll normalize and retest myself but I'm not convinced that levels are the deciding factor here.  I hear a mildly better channel seperation, detail and airyness in the Neve recording that I don't hear in the V3 or 722 and the 722 sounds least clear and has less image depth than the V3 and Neve.  The attibutes I assign to the 722 are those that I hear in many 722 and V3 field recordings I've made or heard from other people.  Across all those samples, using neumans and DPAs in a lot of venues with surely a lot of variation in peak levels, I have come to prefer the V3 preamp over the 722 preamp for precisely the attibutes demonstrated by these samples.

I'll retest and write back in a few days.  If anyone is interested, I'll be happy to upload new samples.

edit so as not to bump:
no gunnar, I haven't done jack with the samples.  I normalized them and gave a quick listen and they definitely sounded closer to one another.  But I have not had time to sit and listen to them.   I'm hoping that I can play again ove christmas break - until then I'm buried at work.

[ghellquist]

So, any verdict yet. I am eager to hear you results. I think it may well be near impossible to hear the difference between the three preamps once you set same levels. A very good and valid comparison if you ask me.

Gunnar

[ghellquist]

Hmm. Any news on listening to the normalized versions?

Gunnar

[BobW]

at 1:10 the Neve revealed itself
damn does that Silk sound like a tube pre!

Second place for me was the Grace, with the SD722 third.
The transparency of the Neve in standard mode is without a doubt very useful, but I wouldn't pair it with this singer/recording/mics as the essing was a bit much for me
Spatially, I like the Grace best, but the source must be given a lot of consideration.
Perhaps you can add a background track of squawkers commenting on beer, costumes, Paris Hilton, parking, bouncers, coat check, websites, how well they know the artist, etc.....oh, yeah and some clinking beer bottles.
That way I'll know how these would sound at most of the places where I tape.   

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Perhaps you can add a background track of squawkers commenting on beer,

Trust me, beer was definitely involved. 

I forgot about this thread.  I still have to test the normalized versions to see if I can hear a difference.  I haven't had time alone with the big system and my planned time over the holidays got taken by something more important.

I agree that the silk sounds great.  I'm willing to accept the premise that amplitude might affect the selection.  However I'm basing my "non-blind testing" on a fairly diverse sample set and I recall the first night I head the Neve in silk mode and thought "holy shit".   Except for the samples I posted, I have not even run it without silk enabled.

Gunnar has been a pretty consistant defender of the 722 preamps and I really don't have any disagreement with that.  I think the 722 makes a damn good recording alone and at this level of discussion, we're really picking at incredibly nuanced distinctions.  In another thread he pointed out that it compares best when run within a certain range - outside of which it compares less favorably.  I need to try that but I'm still inclined to run as hot as possible without clipping.  When doing that, across all the field samples I have, the 722 seems a little punchy in the depths and less spacious compared to the V3 and Neve.  I need to try the 722 alone and "in range" as well and see if I change my mind.  I really need to get some time to review the normalized versions of the samples.

[BobW]

Did I mention a thanks for your time and efforts?

And, indeed, this is definitely a quality champagne tasting event.
None of the Pre samples were less than excellent, it is really a matter of taste between them.

Mmm, Silk....     

[gratefulphish]

Perhaps you can add a background track of squawkers commenting on beer, costumes, Paris Hilton, parking, bouncers, coat check, websites, how well they know the artist, etc.....oh, yeah and some clinking beer bottles.
That way I'll know how these would sound at most of the places where I tape.   

You forgot, "Do you have a cigarette?"

[BobW]

Perhaps you can add a background track of squawkers commenting on beer, costumes, Paris Hilton, parking, bouncers, coat check, websites, how well they know the artist, etc.....oh, yeah and some clinking beer bottles.
That way I'll know how these would sound at most of the places where I tape.   

You forgot, "Do you have a cigarette?"

I asked for one after hearing Silk mode.
That is one sexy preamp!

[monochromic]

I recieved my Portico earlier this week (thanks MattH!) and thought what better way to christen it than with a comp! So here's a small addendum to Lil' Kim's V3/Portico preamp comparison with the mics, source and playback material differing.

Source is Arcam FMJ CD23 > Arcam FMJ A22 > B&W CDM-1NT using a commercial CD.

Samples taken were;
    Schoeps MK41 DINa/KC5/CMC6xt->Lunatec V3>line in SD722
    Schoeps MK41 DINa/KC5/CMC6xt->Portico 5012>line in SD722
    Schoeps MK41 DINa/KC5/CMC6xt->Portico 5012 (w/ Silk)>line in SD722
     
In all samples, the mic gain stage was set at 52db. Please excuse any faults in the test!

A - http://monochromic.org/comp_a.flac
B - http://monochromic.org/comp_b.flac
C - http://monochromic.org/comp_c.flac

Interested to see if you lucky ones with the good ears can spot which sample is which!


Brett.

[mmmatt]

Hey there... I didn't read the other posts so I'm not sure if the results are posted but I'm going to guess because I wanted to try to decode the blind test.

First off I think recorded playback tests are really tough, and not really all that accurate for determining what is best in the field.  Obviously running 4 pre's for a comp at a show is about impossible so whatchagonnado!  Thanks so much for the comp and the time you spent.  The only one of these pre's that I am actually familiar with is the grace, so I could be all wet.  The only one that I found any substantial difference in was B which I didn't think imaged quite as well as the rest.

A:  Grace
B:  722
C:  Neeve
D:  Neeve w/silk

Matt

[mmmatt]

Hey there... I didn't read the other posts so I'm not sure if the results are posted but I'm going to guess because I wanted to try to decode the blind test.

First off I think recorded playback tests are really tough, and not really all that accurate for determining what is best in the field.  Obviously running 4 pre's for a comp at a show is about impossible so whatchagonnado!  Thanks so much for the comp and the time you spent.  The only one of these pre's that I am actually familiar with is the grace, so I could be all wet.  The only one that I found any substantial difference in was B which I didn't think imaged quite as well as the rest.

A:  Grace
B:  722
C:  Neeve
D:  Neeve w/silk

Matt

whoa... I'm going to have to listen again!!! 

Matt

[dactylus]

. marking for future reference.

[ducati]

Does anyone still have these files?  Can't find them on the original FTP, and I'm curious.  TIA!