here are some preamp comparison results

jnorman

New member
over the past couple months i have had the opportunity to do some comparative testing of a pair of grace 101s, an RNP, a millennia media HV3B, a vintech 1272, and a sytek mpx-4aii (with two channels of burr brown opamps). i used a mackie vlz pro mixer as the baseline for all comparisons since almost everyone is familiar with those units. i tested the preamps using pairs of schoeps cmc64s and akg c480s, on a kimball baby grand piano, a gold powell flute, and an old gibson j40 (thanks, bob). here were my results - take 'em with a grain of salt.


grace 101 ($500 per channel) - clean all the way up and down, with a slight de-emphasis on the low mids. way sweeter than than the RNP, but far less punch. not as smooth overall as the HV3B. flute was a bit thin, but very clean and easily fixed wiht a touch of eq, piano was really nice, acoustic guitar was super nice, but again a little thin in lower mids. a quite different sound than the mackie, which was grainy in the upper mids by comparison. the vintech was so different, it hardly makes sense to compare them. the sytek rivalled the grace unit in general, though the grace got the nod for overall clarity, especially on the piano tracks. the grace is not a pre i would select for a male rock vocal, but it is damn nice on acoustic stuff, and an excellent choice for classical applications. not quite in the same league as the millennia media, IMHO. build quality is a bit lacking compared to the more robust grace 201, but this is what makes this unit affordable.

vintech 1272 ($650 per channel) - there is much to love about this unit, but it is surely not what i would select for the classical and chamber music that i do. the 1272 has lots of punch in the lower mids, highs are noticeably rollled off, bottom end is loose sounding on piano. acoustic guitar was full and warm, but not too clean in the highs. flute was warm and full and useable, but more of a rock sound than a classical sound. this is a wonderful pre for male rock/pop vocals, and i have to admit, the build quality is outstanding - a very handsome unit. not a good choice for classical acoustic instruments, IMHO, but i can see many places where it would be perfect for pop studio applications - for example, matched with a pair of akg 451s as OHs, or for warming up a synth, or with a vintage C12 for that classic neve vocal sound.

mackie vlz pro ($50 per channel) - pretty useable, and overall, and amazing performance vs price. - a little more bottom than the grace 101 on piano, though looser. quite a bit grainier in the 5-8k range compared to the grace and HV3. in fact, the mackie is grainy compared to very other pre tested here. i would still choose the mackie over the 1272 for most acoustic applications, but at a certain sacrifice. mackie was grainy and not as clean in the highs as the sytek, otherwise sounds pretty similar to the sytek, but the much lessened grain and the clean high end of the sytek make it a clear winner over the mackie. the mackie also sounds pretty close to the RNP on first listen, except the RNP has a much more agressive mid range, almost like a wide-q eq bump there, and the mackie is noticeably grainier than the RNP as you listen more closely. anyway you look at it though, the mackie is an outstanding piece of gear for the money, and the preamps are useable for almost anything.

RNP ($250 per channel) - a pretty nice little unit, though it looks pretty cheesy. (i have to admit i am not a fan of the RNC, for all of its ardent advocates, though i tend to never use any outboard compression anyway.) this pre has a fairly distinct sound - it is rather punchy sounding due to it midrange emphasis, but the bottom is tighter than the 1272, and the highs are fairly clean, though not near as smooth as the HV3 nor the grace, and not quite as smooth as the BB channels on the sytek. this seems to be an excellent overall preamp at this price point, and seems very suited to lots of pop/rock applications. not quite as clean and smooth as i might want for classical, especially in comparison to the HV3 and the grace, but certainly a clear improvement over the comparatively grainy mackie. the sytek was pretty similar to the RNP in several ways, but the sytek has a bit smoother midrange, and perhaps just slightly cleaner in the upper mids (on the BB channels). i could probably use the RNP for many things, and i can see why this little unit is so popular - i like it.

millennia media HV3B ($850 per channel) - a clear winner in almost every way - this one is very smooth across the entire freq range, yet retains an amazing clarity in the upper end, bottom end is tight and controlled - wish i had 8 channels of this stuff. piano is perfect with the schoeps, flute was clean and clear with both schoeps and c480s (i could hardly tell the mics apart), acoustic guitar just jumps out of the machine. less high end emphasis than the grace, though oddly just as clear. this is the best preamp i have ever used. (HV3B was courtesy of john lagrou).

sytek (about $215 per channel) - i am pretty impressed with this unit. even the unmodified channels were an improvement over the mackie. i found the sytek yeilded a very nice clean top end, especially on the Burr Brown channels, that was more pronounced than the top end on the mackie - the mackie seemed rolled off in the highs in comparison, but even at that the top end on the mackie was still grainier and harsher than the sytek. the BB channels were not as smooth as the HV3, nor the grace, espacially in the highs, but the sytek was fuller in the low mids than the grace. the unit was clearly cleaner and smoother than the mackie, and very similar to the RNP except for the more emphasized mid on the RNP, which makes it sound much more agressive than the sytek. this was very noticeable on the piano tracks, where the RNP gave a nice clean punchy rock sound, and the sytek gave a more balanced classical sound - both were good - just a matter of choice depending on the sound you are after. high end was simialr to the grace, but not quite as delicate. flute was not as smooth on the sytek as on the HV3 or the grace, but it was very useable, and clearly an improvement over the mackie - sounded pretty close to the RNP for this application. acoustic guitar was clean and distinct and full, but again, not as smooth as the HV3, and not as punchy as the RNP - sounded pretty close to the grace on this appllication, but the grace was a little cleaner and tighter, and the sytek had a little more empahsis on the lower mids. this is a very good overall unit that can be used for many acoustic applications with excellent results, and other than the RNP i havent seen anything that can touch it at its price point. in this price range, i'd probably choose the RNP for most rock/pop apps, and choose the sytek for more classical applications.
 
jnorman,

thanks for taking the time to do that for us. I realize how subjective these tests are and unscientific they are critisized for being, but a real world comparison like yours is very helpful..would love to hear all those pre's compared as drum overheads, but maybe thats another member?

do you know off hand if the older mackie vlz's are different than the vlz pro's mic pre's?

thanks again
 
Thanks for the review!

If you were going to be recording classical choral music, would you want the Burr-Browns in the Sytek?

Also, where did you find a Sytek for $860? I thought they were twice that much.
 
Thanks for taking the time to do this. We all appreciate it.

Of all the pre's you reviewed, I have used the MM (8 channel version) and my findings are right in line with yours. (Nice to have my findings confirmed from another source!) Of course, at $850 per channel this is no budget pre, but VERY much worth the investment if one can afford it.
 
I got my Sytek from ebay for 800 bucks. I guess they get rid of the ones they don't sell for half price there, so keep wating, there's always one or two on ebay most of the time.
 
jnorman said:
sorry for omitting that - none of the preamps were routed through the mackie. all preamps went straight into a roland VS1880 and were monitored with tannoy active reveals.

What was your gain matching proceedure? No test of this sort has any validity unless the gains are matched to within .1 db with all the pre-amps involved. There were a couple of "results" I saw in your post that looked like the results that would have been achieved with a lack of gain matching.
 
Oh, and in my audio class our teacher got the chance while we were there to demo one of the 8 channel MM pres. Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
 
fletcher - good question. i used a 1Khz test tone through each pre to set the roland meters at -12dB. yes, i know this is far from technically definitive, but it was the best i could do. levels seemed close enough to make my ball-park comparisons - but i admit i did not pursue this with the same rigor that lynn fuston put into his mic-pre CD testing.
 
Yes, thank you for spending your time to make such a detailed comparison. You have helped me out in choosing my next pre. Not often do people look at things so objectively.
 
btw, after agonizing about this for so long, i finally broke down and just bought a millennia media HV3B. now i can finally stop obsessing about preamps, and start obsessing about converters...
 
I got mine for a lot less than that through Mike Stoica himself, but maybe it was just a hell of a deal.
 
Although I have only had limited experience with most of these pres in other peoples studios and I have never used an hv3b, my initial feelings on them were very similar. But in defense of the more expensive pres, I must say that the mackie really starts showing its faults when you layer a bunch of tracks with it. I've always been impressed by the bang for buck value of a mackie pre when soloing tracks, but once you start to layer things together and then get to the final mix the other pres show themselves to be an entirely different league altogether.
 
Interesting food for thought, thanks.

However...

What does "straight into a Roland" mean?

AFAIK the pre's and A/D in the Roland are reputed to be poor quality. This may therefore skew the results. Using at least something like a Rumour's A/D
convertor (on up) into a digital "in" would be more accurate.

Right?

Chris
 
Back
Top