Topic: Preamp comparison: Portico vs V3 vs SD722

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I put together a quick comparison test using the Neve Portico 5012, the Grace V3, and the SD722 internal mic preamps.   Listen to the samples and then vote on the one you like best.  It was suggested to me that some people might not prefer blind tests.  However there is no right or wrong answer here, it's just simply what you like best.  You can change your vote in case you listen further and change your mind. 

The source material is from a commercially released 24/96 DVDA played on my home system(described here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vdone&1109797147).  I ran this at the end of another long test so the playback system was thoroughly warm.  The 722 was warm and the Portico and V3 were cold.

Samples taken:
     KM143 NOS->SPC wire->mic in SD722
     KM143 NOS->SPC wire->V3->SPC wire->line in SD722
     KM143 NOS->SPC wire->Portico->SPC wire->line in SD722
     KM143 NOS->SPC wire->Portico with silk enabled->SPC wire->line in SD722

In all samples, the mic gain stage was set at 50db and for the latter three the line stage of the 722 set to 0db gain.


Edit by Brian Skalinder

Thanks for the comp, Michael.  Samples now available:

ftp  :  tapers.org
port :  21
dir  :  /drive1/_gear_comparisons/722_V3_Portico
login:  ftp4all
pass :  ftp4all

[Brian Skalinder]

bump for download info in original post

[audBall]

Thanks for the comp!   Nothing like a good challenge for the ears.  Glad to see someone felt the way I did 

[Brian Skalinder]

Haven't listened yet, but judging from the pics, the Portico's smaller than I thought.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

the Portico's smaller than I thought.

its standard half-rack width but it's deeper than the V3.  I need to rework my target rack design.

Neve sells a replacement face plate for $35.  With that in mind I'm thinking I might remove those rack ears - trim the face plate to flush with the chassis and then add a fence around the controls like the V3 has.  It will be better for the pack.   I need a new bag now too, something deeper than the cairne.

[Wiggler]

Thank you very much for the comp.
In order of which I preferred best C,A,B,D
To my ears C had the smoothest sound with the a good separation of instruments and vocals.
B sounded very clean and accurate.
I found D to have a flat 2d soundstage and a little fatiguing particularly in JB's vocals.
It sounded to me that C and A had a warmer slow slew rate sound.
I had a hard time deciding between A and C but liked the lower frequencies better in C.

Listening gear used Cary CD-303> McIntosh C41Pre> McIntosh MC352 amp> Egglestonworks Andra II speakers.

[sygdwm]

Egglestonworks Andra II speakers.

 

[MattH]

Thanks for the great comp. +T

[MattH]

In order of which I prefer best:

A - Neve
C - Neve w/ Silk
B - V3
D - 722 (distant last)

[ghellquist]

Thank you for a great comparison. This is definitely the way to do a comparison, same source and only changing one component keeping everything else same.

To me this shows how litle difference the pre really makes once you are up in the acceptable range. I think all of them are quite useable. I believe that moving the mics a few feet will make more difference than changing between these pres.

There has been a ongoing discussion on this forum where a few very assertive speakes has claimed that the 722 is more or less unusuable without a V3, this test really disproves that claim according to my ears. It is also the very first direct comparision I have ever been able to hear not having ever seen a V3 in real life.

A small side note though is that the levels between the recordings vary a little too much to be useful for direct comparison. It has been shown that the ear is highly affected by sound levels in an AB test, a difference as low as 0.1 dB may be enough to tip the favors. In this case the difference is more like 4dBs. I could easily adjust for this by taking the files into my DAW program and adjust the volumes. (I use Samplitude) but I guess not all users have these facilities easily available.

Gunnar Hellquist
722 user

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

The difference in levels must be the fault of the preamps.  I had all of the preamps set at exactly 50db gain.

You guys ready to know which sample is which preamp?

[kgreener]

You guys ready to know which sample is which preamp?

absolutely! 

[ghellquist]

The difference in levels must be the fault of the preamps.  I had all of the preamps set at exactly 50db gain.

The gain readout of the 722 is highly inaccurate though. One user reports that going from indicated 65dB of gain to indicated 70dB of gain actually changed gain 16.8dB.

It does not matter in most cases as the metering is good, but in a case like this you are bound to see it.

Gunnar

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I guess the proper thing to do would have been to put a sinewave out of the source and calibrate the recording levels using the meter.  I agree that the gain variance can have an effect on perception, but what I hear in the difference between some of the samples cannot be attributed to the difference in levels.

So here are the sample ids:

A - Neve
B - V3
C - Neve Silk
D - 722

(BTW, when MattH first posted his list naming the preamps, I was amazed at how he nailed it - really nice to see how many people know their shit on this board)

I didn't listen to these yet on my home playback system but I've listened to them alot using Grados plugged into my laptop.   I rated them C, A, B, D.   On a scale of 1-6, I put them about like this: C=6, A=5, B=4, D=1.   In this scale, 1 doesn't suck, I'm just trying to find a way to express the relative margins I applied to the difference between samples.   I thought that the Neve silk, Neve, and V3 edged each other out but there was a clear difference to me between all samples.  I prfered the silk overall, but I can understand why someone might like the Neve over the Neve silk. 

To my ears the 722 clearly lagged in clarity and depth compared to the others.  However, it may not be fair to compare a $1700 dedicated preamp to the preamp in a $2400 full featured unit.  The 722 preamp might best other preamps in the $900 range and you have to consider the relative size of the two units.   I'll never hesitate to use the 722 alone for low profile but after listening to the samples, I feel justified in carrying the extra gear to run an external preamp for open taping.   Honestly, if the 722 had matched the others, I'd be very happy to sell the other pieces and always carry a single box.

I'm glad you guys enjoyed the test.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

First, thanks for the comp!  As I've said many times, doing comps is hard.

Thank you for a great comparison. This is definitely the way to do a comparison, same source and only changing one component keeping everything else same.

I'm glad to see some Portico comps appearing..  As I do more and more comps, it becomes increasingly apparent that you can't judge a preamp by one or two comps.  Is it acoustic, is it PA, is the room muddy or clean, is it loud or quiet, is it a complex 3d soundstage, is the gain 20 db or 50db.  And then there is the whole subjective.. What do you like and how does your playback sound.

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 did a comp recently where we recorded a friend's electric guitar running through two amps in stereo.  There is just no way we could do that comp using a recording of that guitar vs. the real deal. We could but it would be a very different comp.

A quick analysis of the RMS and peak levels in the sources:

rms level        peak       
-13.5791dBFS -3.2013dBFS   pat_A.wav                             
-15.5659dBFS -5.1547dBFS   pat_B.wav                             
-12.7917dBFS -2.5005dBFS   pat_C.wav                             
-16.9696dBFS -6.5929dBFS   pat_D.wav                             

FWIW, I usually tweak the gain in post so the rms levels all match. The peaks won't often be the same but I figure matching rms is the best approximation. I can't trust my judgement with these levels but will hopefully get some listening in tomorrow.