Topic: Preamp Comp: Naiant littlebox ($179) vs. Grace Lunatec V3 ($1525)

[Todd R]

If the gain on each channel was not equalized in post, it's probably that littlebox isn't as easily set to identical gain.  In my tests, setting the two gain knobs by eye I can generally get within 0.3dB.  I figure most microphones are within that tolerance or worse, but if you combine those tolerances it would be audible as a stereo slant.

Certainly it would not be a result of cables, unless they were seriously defective. 

Sorry, I tried to get this comp out before our upcoming move took over events.  In the way of more detail:

- the show was recorded in the front of the soundboard cage (inside, slightly left) at the Fillmore in Denver.  I didn't think to measure or really estimate, but I'd say we were about 60' back
- all four mics were on a darktrain t-bar, with the two sets interleaved.  left of one pair, left of the other pair, right of the 1st pair, right of the 2nd pair.  As such the outer left and outer right mics (which were of two different pairs) were pretty open, whereas the inner left and inner right mics probably had a bit of shadowing going on.  I don't know if this would have effected the stereo image.
- I did post processing to match the relative gain.  No other post processing was done.  Both channels of a particular mic pair were matched on an average rms basis.  On this basis, I find it somewhat odd that people are finding the image to lean to the right since the channels were matched in post, but I'm not sure what effect this post balancing would have (there was at most about 2db of boosting done for the matching, though I forget the exact amount).
-each of the two sources was matched to within 0.1db of each other, again on an average RMS basis.  Then both sources were boosted to near 0dbFS on an absolute basis.  Since I tried to match the level of each source on an RMS basis, one source has absolute peaks at about -0.1db, where the other has absolute peaks near -0.3 or -0.5db, depending on the channel.  Again, since they were matched on an average RMS level, I would think that they would appear to have the same average loudness (though I also find one source to sound a bit louder subjectively, not sure why).

Also, as I think I mentioned, since STS9 only played one set, the individual mic pairs used for each preamp might also account for some of the sound differences.  I'm hoping that mics at the price point of these gefells are all fairly well matched, at least in terms of tonality.  Still, I'd like to get the chance to switch around the mics at set break so we could try to understand how those differences in mics effect the comp

Thanks for everyone's input so far.  I would love to hear more, so I'll keep the sources a mystery for a bit longer.  If those folks who already responded would like to know which is which (and agree to keep quiet for a little bit longer), drop me a line and I'll try to let you know.  But I'm in the process of moving, my internet is down at my house, and I already had to take a half day off work today for closing, so it might be until tomorrow until I can get replies out, so please bear with me.

[L Ron Hoover]

I'm in the club with 2 & 3 being the V3.

Just curious, and sorry if I missed it. Were any windscreens used on the mics, and if so, were they different?

I am quite amazed at how different they sound. Gotta love the Gefell's no matter what's run behind them!

1 and 4, 1 especially, seem to have a transformer looseness sort of like a SD MP2.

[jlykos]

From listening to this on my Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones, I think that tracks 2 and 3 are the same source and 1 and 4 are the same source.  2 and 3 have a more up-front presentation with a strident midrange that seems disconnected from the low end.  I don't know if 2 and 3 have a more detailed midrange, or whether it is just so much louder than the other frequencies that I think it is more detailed when it is just plain louder.  1 and 4 are more coherent with a cohesive presentation and greater smoothness across the tonal spectrum.  I agree with what one poster said about how 1 and 4 are slightly biased to the right side, especially with track 4.  For my tastes, I prefer 1 and 4 on my headphones.  An ideal unit would be one that combines the midrange detail of 2 and 3 with the cohesion of 1 and 4, IMHO.  Unfortunately, Oade and Aeta are no longer making these units.  I may change my mind if I listen to the compilation on a different playback system.

My inherent biases are 100% for the Gefells, as they are the best microphones in the world.  On the other hand, I admit to preferring other preamplifiers over the Grace V3, which is why I ran a MiniMe in the past and now run a PSP-2 in front of mine.  The V3 is a very fine piece of equipment, but I prefer a different sonic signature.

I don't know which sources go with which preamps; I just like 1 and 4 better.

[sanaka]

I don't know if I just mixed up which numbers I had decided on before or if I've actually changed my mind, but on longer and super close listening I have to agree that it must be tracks 1&4 belong to one preamp and 2&3 to the other. I actually drew a little chart of tracks versus qualities: bass, brightness, and how the waveform looked in the DAW. Definitely 2&3 to me are brighter, and their waveforms also appear "fatter", whereas 1&4 have a skinnier looking waveform and IMO a less forward sound with punchier bass.

I lean towards the 1&4 sound, but can't arrive at a real preference!

Peace,
Sanaka

[Todd R]

It looks like I might be without internet pretty soon until Monday, so I thought I'd post the results.  Thanks for everyone's inputs on this.  FWIW, I also liked pre2 and pre3 on these comps, overall.  My listening was on a pair of Audioengine A5's fed from my R44 (in a room where pretty much everything is packed up, so it's live as hell and really echo-y), and on a pair of Grado 225's fed from my iMac.  Ideally, I'd like to listen more on my usual playback system after our move is done, and ideally I'd like to make more comps to have more data points.

That said, results below:





























Pre2 and Pre3 were the littlebox (burr-brown edition).  Pre1 and Pre4 were the Lunatec V3.

I thought the results were pretty surprising.  Surprising on one hand since the two sources to me sounded pretty different, and I expected them to be closer in sound as they are both based on the same current-feedback, instrumentation amp topology.  And surprising that I like many other here preferred the littlebox.  I do agree with some of the comments about the littlebox midrange -- on one hand I like the detail, on another, I'm afraid on some sources it will sound a bit strident.  But the LB source seemed to me to have a fullness about it that I don't think was simply a result of a more prominent midrange.  The LB also to me had a much bigger, more involving soundstage.

I've been a huge fan of the V3 for many years, so I'm not willing to proclaim it inferior to the LB on the basis of one test.  But I think the LB clearly is a very good preamp in terms of cost, size, battery life (and ability like mine to have an internal battery), and sound.  I still hope to run a number of additional comps over the next few months, against the V3 if I can borrow it again, and against my EAA PSP2 and against the internal preamps of my Oade-modded R44.

[Todd R]

Just curious, and sorry if I missed it. Were any windscreens used on the mics, and if so, were they different?

Nope, indoor show, and no windscreens used.

[sanaka]

Wow...

^
 

[rjp]

Pre2 and Pre3 were the littlebox (burr-brown edition).  Pre1 and Pre4 were the Lunatec V3.

Now I'm even more impressed with the littlebox... wish my financial situation was better right now. When my money supply improves, this is on my short list.

It would be interesting to hear an INA111 vs. AD620 comparison...

[page]

It would be interesting to hear an INA111 vs. AD620 comparison...

It would be interesting to hear a comparison of various opamps <period>. I've seen some various ones compared here but thats just a small sampling of stuff.

[sanaka]

...V3's noise is like 10dB lower and it has 20dB more gain.  But if the microphone's noise level is above littlebox's noise (true for most but not all condensers), that evens up the score quite a lot....

...I never set out to make a TS-2 though.  That's a THAT1512 box that goes full-out with power consumption for low noise and high gain.  That's useful for dynamic mics, but I didn't set out to build a dynamic mic preamp.  If you're driving two phantom-powered mics, you spend your power on the phantom and then you shouldn't need to spend it again on noise and gain because your input signal is hot....

I am amazed by your work, Jon. I think most other preamp makers for the concert taper market ought to be quaking in their boots right now. I think the forward midrange detail of your Littlebox is easily tamed in post as opposed to trying to get more mid detail, if one so desired, from a laid back sound like the V3 in these recordings. So while I slightly prefer the V3's own sound, no way would I pay 8.5x for it!

My thing is I record quiet sources, acoustic stuff, and I'd love to do ambient nature sound stuff if ever I can ratchet my gear into that hig gain/low noise zone. Just having even fairly sensitive condensor mics doesn't quite make that grade. My recent recordings, straight into an R-44, exhibit some hiss due to everything needing to be cranked. So a V3 perhaps gives someone these kind of options. But my mind is mulling on what it would be like to feed an R-44 from a Littlebox, and use some gain from both? FI, both set at a low-noise sweet spot, say ~36dB gain, would give me 72dB, just like a Sound Devices.

The above offered because I know everyone is just so interested in my musings...

Peace,
Sanaka

[L Ron Hoover]

Pre2 and Pre3 were the littlebox (burr-brown edition).  Pre1 and Pre4 were the Lunatec V3.

I somehow knew had a feeling that was gonna be the case.

[illconditioned]

The stock amps are slower and thus perhaps less strident.  I never did a direct comparison with INA111 though, so I'm not too sure.  Right now I have my test box with INA217 in one channel and AD620 in the other, that is a crazy combination . . . no, you probably don't want INA217 in your box.

A great comparison would be to take a single mic and split it to L/R.  One channel with INA217 and the other channel with AD620.  So we're comparing a known good preamp, INA217, to your smarter low-power design.

I would love to hear that, recording both ambient sounds and live music.  Listen to each preamp as a mono signal.  We could hear both "transparency" of ambient recording and "musicality", whatever that is...

  Richard

[illconditioned]

I don't think I'm going to do that.  INA217 is a chip, not a preamp; I'd have to rework the circuit to optimize it for INA217, otherwise all I would prove is how to mess up INA217.  The V3 uses INA163 I think; that should be close enough.  Although it's likely that INA217 sounds more like INA111 in littlebox than INA163 in the V3.

9V battery life with INA217 would be about two hours; that's not something I want to encourage.  I only dropped in INA217 to validate noise solutions with a discrete front-end I was testing, but that used too much current as well.

I'm not asking for any claims of your amp being equal to a V3.  All I'm saying is that INA217 is a widely accepted chip for (audio) preamps.  Something like the DMIC-20 has that (well, they have an SSM2019, which many people replace with the INA chip).  What I'm suggesting is a comparison between something like the INA217, which is accepted for audio, and something new like your AD instrumentation amp, that is not generally used for audio, but may be a real sleeper.  If it sounds just as good, you've got a much better solution: similar quality sound, but less power, when you don't need as much gain.  A real head-to-head would be the SSM series of chips, but I'm since you've already got a prototype with the INA217, why not use it for a test?  This would be a great way to validate the use of your AD chip.

  Richard

[Gutbucket]

Found this late.  Thanks for the comp, the Naiant sounds great. 

Sounds like channels are swapped left to right on one source.  Listening carefully, the crowd chatter at the beginnings of the samples swaps sides.

[Todd R]

Found this late.  Thanks for the comp, the Naiant sounds great. 

Sounds like channels are swapped left to right on one source.  Listening carefully, the crowd chatter at the beginnings of the samples swaps sides.

Oops, I forgot to post back about this.  Oops also -- yes, unfortunately the littlebox sources have the channels swapped.  I had just gotten the preamp, which has its XLR inputs, and just assumed the XLR on the left was for the left channel, when in fact it is for the right channel, and the right XLR is for the left channel.