Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Battery Boxes, Preamps, Mixers, ADCs, and Processors => Topic started by: it-goes-to-eleven on August 27, 2006, 03:05:08 PM
-
[ The files used in the previous version of this comp were out of phase and flawed. Please grab the new files and re-vote. Sorry for the hassle. ]
So last night I did a v3 vs. R09 A/D comp at Billy Joe Shaver. I'll warn you right now that this is country. If that bothers you, maybe try thinking of it as folk ;)
MG200 DIN > v3
coax > microtrack 24/48
analog out > r09 line in, 24/48, trim setting 8
Analog cables were belden 1814a.
The V3 gain was 35dB.
13.5 dB of gain was applied to the v3 source in post
4.5 dB of gain was applied to the r09 source in post
16/44 bit samples were produced with wavelab5, uv22hr
-
I'm getting a 404 error. Anyone else?
-
Thank you sir.
Edit:
I still find both of these samples to sound quite good. I really can't chose a "better" sample.
-
Again, I feel the same way. In A, the bass is nice and full and in B its not lacking, but just not as rounded. But on the otherhand, in B you can almost hear the guitar string "twang" and its really clear in the high/mids while in A just doesn't have that same clarity. Not to say that A doesn't sound nice in the high/mids, but its just a litte less detailed. But it would only be noticable with both side by side. If I was just listening to one of these tapes, I would probably just comment on how good it sounds. Both sound great and are excellent tapes.
+t for the comp. well done!
-
I agree with bwolf. A is more full on the bottom end and B is cleaner on the mid's and highs. I also think that the difference is more noticeable or striking b/w the 16 bit samples than they are with the 24's.
So this is just a comp of the A>D of the V3 vs. the A>D of the R4? If you go analog out of the V3 with the gain turned up you are still going through the pre stage, right?
-
I felt that A was a bit more detailed on the strings and felt better to me across the spectrum. More "airy" like a v3 than the 2nd. B felt a little more colored and warm to me.
listened on Waveterminal 24/96 > Sennheiser HD580's
-
Very hard call. It's notable to me that the 16 bit samples are quite a bit darker sounding. In fact, I found myself prefering the 24bit version of B (slightly warmer perhaps) and the 16 bit version of A (a bit brighter which offset the darkness of the 16bit file). Encouraging. Thanks for the comp.
-
Interesting comments! Especially those of you who are noticing (sometimes unexpected) differences between the 24bit and 16 bit sources. My main speaker playback (24bit) has been down while I work on a problem adding a SATA drive (outta space.. gotta deal with it Now). So listening has mainly been 16bit via headphones (hd280) for me.
I notice the greatest difference in the cymbals and in the loud vocal near the end of the clip. I'm going to bite my tongue on my prefs and why because I know which is which even without the label.
This source is from a mono PA with a pair of centrally mounted speakers above the stage. There will be some stereo fill from the on-stage instruments, etc. So while useful and interesting, this particular comp is lacking a detailed soundstage. I believe that with a more complex soundstage the differences between the v3 and r09 A/Ds would be more dramatic.
I have another comp with a complex soundstage that shows a MUCH greater difference.. But those sources involved different mics and configs. So I've been holding off on posting that one due to the apples and oranges..
-
Playback = Wavelab 5 >M-Audio Delta DIO 2496 > AKG k240 headphones
Both sound very good with only extreme slight differences.
I couldn't pick out individual "sound" differences, but I did get a better feeling from source A.
I seemed to get the warm fuzzies on source A for both the 16bit and 24bit. You know how sometimes you can just feel the music more so than hear the music? They both sounded great, but source A made my body "feel" better. Source B made me "feel" on edge slightly. I believe this to be the difference in the AD pre. IMHO, source A had less of a noise floor making it more Dynamic and quieter in spots thus giving it a more pleasant "feel". Can someone else back me on "feeling" the music as to "hearing" the music or am I :smoking2:
Once I had a preconceived notion as to which source I liked better I used ABX to verify it blindly and found that 14 out of the 20 listens, I chose source A to be the better sounding feeling source.
IMO- Source A = V3 AD Source B = R4
If i'm wrong, i'm looking for an R-9 in the yard sale :P
-
Sounds like some phasing of the cymbals going on in both (all 4) samples. Maybe it's just the cymbals rocking around as they are hit though. The 'air'/transparency/ or extention at the top end is what I notice most beween the different bit depths of these samples, though that could just be more of a frequency response difference. I'll be interested in looking deeper into some other 16 vs 24 bit (various dither) type comps.
Interesting what you say about the mono PA. Soundstaging was something I was interested in listening for and wasn't overwelmed by either one, that explains why.
I've impressed myself and others with the soundstage of HTRF'ed 4060(matched)>MMA6k>R-09 via headphone playback & nearfields, but I haven't had the chance to compare that pre+A/D to another yet.
Ernesto's knocking.. off to put up hurricane shutters... If the power is still on tomorrow and I can hear the stereo over the pounding rain, I'll listen again for "feel" inside my darkend cave.
-
Thanks for the comp, Freelunch!
Question, since I'm an idiot regarding the V3... so the signal path for the R-09 went as such:
MG200 DIN > v3 [analog out] > r09 line in, 24/48, trim setting 8
For that type of usage (analog out of the V3), does the V3 digitize the signal, and THEN convert the signal back to analog for the analog outputs? In other words, does the R-09 source go as such: mics > V3 Analog-to-Digital conversion > V3 Digital-to-Analog conversion > analog outputs > R-09.
Or does the V3 just "pass-through" the analog signal and act as a basic preamp (i.e. simply boosting/lowering the incoming level, with no AD/DA conversions) when you utilize its analog outputs?
What I think would also be interesting is running some type of splitter, as such:
Mics > splitter >
V3 > microtrack 24/48 (or whatever "bit bucket")
R-09 line in, 24/48, trim setting 8
It seems the above would maybe be a little more "scientific" since it would really isolate the V3's ADC vs. the R-09's internal ADC with no intermingling of the two.
-
For that type of usage (analog out of the V3), does the V3 digitize the signal, and THEN convert the signal back to analog for the analog outputs? In other words, does the R-09 source go as such: mics > V3 Analog-to-Digital conversion > V3 Digital-to-Analog conversion > analog outputs > R-09.
Or does the V3 just "pass-through" the analog signal and act as a basic preamp (i.e. simply boosting/lowering the incoming level, with no AD/DA conversions) when you utilize its analog outputs?
The V3 analog outputs are straight from the pre-amp, i.e. the signal does not go through an A/D and then D/A stage. it is, as you say, a "pass-through" and functions as a basic pre-amp.
-
What we are really testing here is the A/D of the V3 Vs. A/D of the R-9. And from what I can tell they are pretty close, however owning a V3, I would like to think I can hear a difference.
-
For that type of usage (analog out of the V3), does the V3 digitize the signal, and THEN convert the signal back to analog for the analog outputs? In other words, does the R-09 source go as such: mics > V3 Analog-to-Digital conversion > V3 Digital-to-Analog conversion > analog outputs > R-09.
Or does the V3 just "pass-through" the analog signal and act as a basic preamp (i.e. simply boosting/lowering the incoming level, with no AD/DA conversions) when you utilize its analog outputs?
The V3 analog outputs are straight from the pre-amp, i.e. the signal does not go through an A/D and then D/A stage. it is, as you say, a "pass-through" and functions as a basic pre-amp.
Thanks for that information, Jason, and +T.
-
Phil, I agree with you that how it feels and how musical it sounds are more important than the more technical observations (which version has clearer cymbals, etc) that have been mostly made up until now.. Linn described it as how much a system made you tap your toe, etc.
Sounds like some phasing of the cymbals going on in both (all 4) samples.
It was a pretty simple kit but I didn't get to see much of it because Billy was standing in front of it. I can't recall another show at that venue where I've noticed that cymbal phasing so I'm guessing something was funny about the mic'ing or something.
I've impressed myself and others with the soundstage of HTRF'ed 4060(matched)>MMA6k>R-09 via headphone playback & nearfields, but I haven't had the chance to compare that pre+A/D to another yet.
In those other recordings I mentioned above my primary concern about soundstage was depth front to back. Obviously many combos can do the L-R imaging well but capturing the depth of the soundstage is much more difficult. Plus you need a playback that can image it.
Ernesto's knocking.. off to put up hurricane shutters... If the power is still on tomorrow and I can hear the stereo over the pounding rain, I'll listen again for "feel" inside my darkend cave.
Batten down the hatches and good luck!
-
What I think would also be interesting is running some type of splitter, as such:
Mics > splitter >
V3 > microtrack 24/48 (or whatever "bit bucket")
R-09 line in, 24/48, trim setting 8
It seems the above would maybe be a little more "scientific" since it would really isolate the V3's ADC vs. the R-09's internal ADC with no intermingling of the two.
What you describe would be both a pre and A/D comp. The gotcha with that is the sonic impact of the splitter. I think it could muck things up in ways that aren't obvious. You'd be changing the impedance of the system. Many devices have variable impedance. That could interact with the other device to make one of them look worse than it really is, etc. You could have the impedance 'pulsing' to the beat of the bass, etc?
Similarly, there can be a dramatic differences in the quality of 48v supplied by the preamp. So when you combine them...?
I ran a comp like that a couple weeks ago:
mg > splitter
> bg1 > 722
> v3 coax > mt
v3 > r09
That one didn't turn out so good.. I've used the mic splitter before and it has worked well. I usually turn on the phantom from both pre-amps. On that night I only turned on the phantom on one pre.. probably because I'd turned on a few too many margaritas before the show. The recording sounds messed up and overloaded. I've been kinda baffled about it. When I noticed the phase problem on that cable I was glad and hoped that would resolve the issue. It did not. I am now thinking that the single 48v phantom source was insufficient to power the mics and overcome whatever additional load came from the other pre-amp. That's just a guess. Could be that the MGs don't like to drive the dual loads.
The r09 input is unbalanced.. So when you go from most preamps > r09 you must use a cable to convert the balanced signal to unbalanced. There are a few ways to wire that cable. Vandenhul suggests different configs depending on the type of balanced output drvier on the preamp.
-
SPOILERS FOLLOW!
A= V3 > R09
B= V3 A/D > MT
-
interesting.
I knew that r9 sounded freakin' great.
I wouldnt' hesitate to run it as my main deck w/a nice preamp in front of it.
wonder what v2>r9 VS. V3 would sound like.
damn..i've got to sell some cables so I can replace mine. Maybe I'll dump my 671.
-
great comp freelunch - thanks for setting it up
-
wonder what v2>r9 VS. V3 would sound like.
considering that the pre-amp in the V3 is just about identical to the V2, v2>r09 would sound just about the same as the v3>r09 :)
-
A= V3 > R09
B= V3 A/D > MT
Nice. Thanks for the comp!
-
great comp freelunch - thanks for setting it up
-
considering that the pre-amp in the V3 is just about identical to the V2, v2>r09 would sound just about the same as the v3>r09 :)
dont get smart w/me, mister!
;-)
-
Rats, didn't get a chance to d/l and listen before the results posting, but gave it a listen. I definitely hear differences while ABX-ing. FWIW, my comments...
I hear better detail across the board in B. The HF percussion sings and rings, has a more defined attack and smoother, longer decay. Better detail in the mids on B, but a bit more up front in A. The bass stood out to me right away - looser and less defined in A, tighter and more natural sounding to my ears in B. Overall, I found the sounstage more coherent in B. All in all, I preferred B pretty strongly, but A certainly doesn't sound bad, not by any stretch. (And I love the music - I'd love to hear longer samples, or the whole recording.)
-
Rats, didn't get a chance to d/l and listen before the results posting, but gave it a listen. I definitely hear differences while ABX-ing. FWIW, my comments...
I guess I could put the results in a file for download instead of posting but if you read the thread you'll always get the comments of those who have figured it out..
(And I love the music - I'd love to hear longer samples, or the whole recording.)
Recording that night was kinda funny.. I don't want to turn this thread into one of Those threads but here goes.. First, I saw on Billy's website that the band had been robbed two nights earlier in kansas. It sure does seem to be happening a lot recently.. Billy lost his guitar, amp and some other items. I was really surprised the he did not have a borrowed guitar on stage. So I'm sure the show was a little odd for him since he is obviously accustomed to standing behind a guitar..
Soundcheck ran late so they let us in late and we didn't have much time to get permission and setup (10-15 mins). We were pretty sure recording would be fine. One of my taper buddies asked the soundguy to ask permission. Several minutes later he came back and said 'he wants to say hello'.. Uh oh... So my buddy does the long walk back there.. But I'm thinking cool.. this means I have more time to setup..
My buddy returns and says we're good.. But right before the band walks on he says that Billy told him he wanted his tape after the show and he would mail it back to him. So my buddy suggested that I might want to tear down quickly after the show. Then the band came out.. After the show I heard more detail. They want to do some releases. They told him 'tonight you're taping for us for free...' Those of us who tape regularly at this non-profit venue are all for the bands making some money off of our recordings if they can. But I didn't really like how this all sounded..
But, also.. The man was just robbed of his guitar. So I think that mitigates everything and this just becomes a funny story we'll joke about for a long while "We're okay to tape but he wants you to come back and say hello. Oh yeah, he said to bring your DAT deck.." So I don't see this one getting seeded. But, Brian, shoot me a pm with your address and I'll send you a copy.
-
Thanks Freelunch!
Great comp.
Now who's got my R-9? :P
-
My thanks as well!
My R-09 arrives soon! :)
-
where have the results gone? do poll-results expire after a while?
-
Another similar comp:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,84616.0.html
-
link?