Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Battery Boxes, Preamps, Mixers, ADCs, and Processors => Topic started by: Lil Kim Jong-Il on November 12, 2006, 05:58:04 PM
-
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
-
bump for download info in original post
-
Thanks for the comp! Nothing like a good challenge for the ears. Glad to see someone felt the way I did :)
-
Haven't listened yet, but judging from the pics, the Portico's smaller than I thought.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Egglestonworks Andra II speakers.
:o
-
Thanks for the great comp. +T
-
In order of which I prefer best:
A - Neve
C - Neve w/ Silk
B - V3
D - 722 (distant last)
-
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
-
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?
-
You guys ready to know which sample is which preamp?
absolutely!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Hmm. Any news on listening to the normalized versions?
Gunnar
-
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. :P
-
Perhaps you can add a background track of squawkers commenting on beer,
Trust me, beer was definitely involved. :D
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.
-
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.... ;D
-
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. :P
You forgot, "Do you have a cigarette?"
-
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. :P
You forgot, "Do you have a cigarette?"
I asked for one after hearing Silk mode.
That is one sexy preamp!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
. marking for future reference.
-
Does anyone still have these files? Can't find them on the original FTP, and I'm curious. TIA!
-
PM me a server or email address. I still have the original files.
-
Thanks! PM sent.