Preamp A vs Preamp B - Discuss.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neeps
  • Start date Start date

Preamp A vs Preamp B

  • I liked preamp A best.

    Votes: 37 30.3%

  • I liked preamp B best.

    Votes: 52 42.6%

  • I couldn't tell the difference.

    Votes: 33 27.0%
  • Total voters
    122
I still wish someone would post a blind test of one of the hoity-toity, multi-thousand dollars preamps vs. a Behringer mixer !


We could put "preamp-fetishism" to rest for good ! :D
 
I thought I posted that similar thought too,

I'd like to hear a Great River and a DMP3..A&B.
maybe the larger "range", would show more of a difference?

as far as solo-track comparison there's nothing wrong with that is there?
I understand there's the strange "sitting in the mix" phenomena many speak of.

and next time the OP doesn't have to tell anyone which is which! just leave everyone hanging in virtual limbo gearhell...
 
The Axis said:
I still wish someone would post a blind test of one of the hoity-toity, multi-thousand dollars preamps vs. a Behringer mixer !


We could put "preamp-fetishism" to rest for good ! :D
Click to expand...

I don't have the files anymore but when I first bought the DMP I did a similar comparison between The DMP3, an audiobuddy and the behringer 'invisible' preamps an my mixer.

As I recall the audiobuddy and the DMP3 were very similar and the behringer preamps were utterly terrible. Very noisy and very tinny. That's why I reccomend the audiobuddy as a minimum for people starting out.


I'd like someone to do a similar comparison between a fancy pants thousands of pounds preamp and a DMP3 or a RNP or even an audiobuddy. I'd do it myself but I'd need to sell my car or something.
 
fancy pants... the hi-end gear would be my choice if a business, but for HR if a person can get real close & cheaply, and not need the "name brand" to impress the customers, maybe a DMP3 can actually ,make a good a sound or even a preferred tone good enough. Its a starting point and maybe more?

nuemes, hahaa....
yep nuemes...HR trailer trash land where everyone has tin-ears, instead of Golden Ears..yep like cavemen choosing the wrong audio product with our ears!!

HR DIY's making their speaker cables from used lamp cord, instead of your gold Monster cables with Oxygen free rubber that is guaranteed to last 400 years... and has a little logo printed on it that says MONSTER GOLD CABLE FOR PROFESSIONALS ONLY....

yes, just a bunch of pathetic tone deaf people. hope you accept our apology for choosing the wrong one. :rolleyes:
 
Thanks for posting that Neeps, interesting. The way this usually plays out is that there is an underwhelming difference between a good budget or middle ground pre and a high end pre, based on a single clip, but then folks will point out the stacking effect. There is certainly some truth to that, but there is also a lot of truth to the fact that really good recordings can be made with a preamp like the DMP-3, and really bad recordings can be made with the John Hardy, or any other pricy preamp. The not so great recordings in that comparison serve best to remind that the source and the room play a MUCH bigger role.
 
I'd like to hear a Great River and a DMP3..A&B.
Click to expand...
At one time I actually had a Great River NP2, the older DMP2, a Behringer MP2200, and an Earthworks LAB102 all set up side by side in my studio....also a Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer.

I could imagine that I could hear slight differences in response, but it was definitely not a clear-cut decision that one was "better" than the other.

The Earthworks seemed most "transparent", which I regard as the most important feature.
The Behringer and DMP2 both sounded quite good and "neutral", but with perhaps a small loss of crystal transparency.
The Mackie 1202 sounded very "clean and crisp", but almost as if the high frequencies were boosted slightly.
The GR was definitely the most "colored" of the group, almost sounding slightly like a very slightly overdriven tube amp. It sounded very good. I can see why people like it, but it was definitely not transparent.

All these differences were so slight as to be in the "borderline imaginary" level. And I knew exactly what was testing and was able to A/B switch back and forth many times. I don't think I would ever be able to confidently identify any of them in a blind test; and certainly not in an MP3.

Just my opinions; blame it on my crappy ears. I sold everything off except the Mackie and an Audio Buddy. :D I usually just use the built-in preamps of my VS1680. So many other things made such a vastly greater impact on sound, that I just quit worrying about preamps.
 
At one time I actually had a Great River NP2... The GR was definitely the most "colored" of the group, almost sounding slightly like a very slightly overdriven tube amp. It sounded very good. I can see why people like it, but it was definitely not transparent.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the old Great River MP2 or do you mean the newer MP2-NV? I have a GR MP2. I'd describe it as the cleanest, most transparent pre I've ever used. The NV model is a different animal.

All these differences were so slight as to be in the "borderline imaginary" level.
Click to expand...
I agree with your descriptions of the Mackie and Behri pre's. But the differences I hear between those and the GR are huge, especially on acoustic sources.
 
The Axis said:
At one time I actually had a Great River NP2, the older DMP2, a Behringer MP2200, and an Earthworks LAB102 all set up side by side in my studio....also a Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer.

I could imagine that I could hear slight differences in response, but it was definitely not a clear-cut decision that one was "better" than the other.

The Earthworks seemed most "transparent", which I regard as the most important feature.
The Behringer and DMP2 both sounded quite good and "neutral", but with perhaps a small loss of crystal transparency.
The Mackie 1202 sounded very "clean and crisp", but almost as if the high frequencies were boosted slightly.
The GR was definitely the most "colored" of the group, almost sounding slightly like a very slightly overdriven tube amp. It sounded very good. I can see why people like it, but it was definitely not transparent.

All these differences were so slight as to be in the "borderline imaginary" level. And I knew exactly what was testing and was able to A/B switch back and forth many times. I don't think I would ever be able to confidently identify any of them in a blind test; and certainly not in an MP3.

Just my opinions; blame it on my crappy ears. I sold everything off except the Mackie and an Audio Buddy. :D I usually just use the built-in preamps of my VS1680. So many other things made such a vastly greater impact on sound, that I just quit worrying about preamps.
Click to expand...


I have said it before and will say it again. Use great pre-amps long enough in a MIX and NOT a single instrument recording. Go back to the cheapies and you will definately know there is a big diff. It takes plenty of time using and mixing with great pre-amps, mics, or anything else to really know the difference. If you just can't hear a big (read important) difference then many other things need improving like rooms/monitors/mics/more experience etc.

The sad fact is that guy A buys a great pre-amp, hooks it up and records a guitar track. Then, because there is not a night and day difference in sound the expensive pre is deemed to be just as good as the cheap ones.

I am tired of these mic pre "shootouts" that feature a single acoustic guitar track only. I want to hear full mixes to hear the "difference" for myself.
 
Neeps said:
What do you mean by that are you saying that homerecorders prefer an inferior sound or something?
Click to expand...

Not saying they prefer an inferior sound but that there are a bunch that don't know what to listen for because they don't have much experience. I expect that the guys who record full time have a much better ear than those who record part time (like me) and those that record part time a better ear than those who record as a hobby on occasion.

The vote results are not only useless but potentially hazardous because somebody new to recording ends up reading the thread and thinking that the DMP3 is a better preamp.

Chessrock: bite me
 
Last edited:
MCI2424 said:
...Use great pre-amps long enough in a MIX and NOT a single instrument recording. Go back to the cheapies and you will definately know there is a big diff....I am tired of these mic pre "shootouts" that feature a single acoustic guitar track only. I want to hear full mixes to hear the "difference" for myself.
Click to expand...
I hear you and agree that everything compounds in a mix. But my most common situation is the opposite. I'm most involved with preamp quality related to solo, sometimes duo, arrangements. And what I hear is a huge difference in preamp quality in that application where the fine points of the sound are very exposed. I agree also that the listening environment is critical, and fine points of sound quality are easily lost there.

So I'd say that preamp quality is just as important for solo instruments as it is with multitrack mixes. It just depends on what sphere one is working in as to which things seem top priority.

The things I notice with a good pre are natural transient response, no added edginess or veiling, and a "live-in-the-room" 3-D depth. Lesser quality pre's can sound more artificial and 2-dimensional in comparison.

As with everything in audio, YMMV.:)
 
I agree that the manner in which a preamp stacks up in a mix is equally important as how it solos against another amp... the problem is, you can't do a blind test on preamps in a mix without introducing too many variables... too many different sources, and the skill of the person at the board...
 
nuemes said:
Not saying they prefer an inferior sound but that there are a bunch that don't know what to listen for because they don't have much experience.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need any special qualifications to listen to the two versions and decide which one you like best!!

The thing is Nuemes.... I find what you are saying to be a little bit insulting and patronising. Most people here could tell the difference between the two samples. In fact many people descibed the differences that they heard in detail and gave reasons for why they picked the one that they did. For the most part their verbal descriptions tied in with what I was hearing so I got the impression that most people were listening, were hearing and were thinking about it before they responded. I believe the picture that you are painting of the users of this forum is inaccurate and a tad unfair.
 
nuemes said:
I found the RNP sample clearly better sounding. I can hardly believe some of you guys are comparing the DMP3 favorably to it. I need to remember this is a home recording forum more often...
Click to expand...
Would I be wrong in assuming that you own the FMR and not an M-Audio?? :rolleyes:
 
Neeps said:
I don't think you need any special qualifications to listen to the two versions and decide which one you like best!!

The thing is Nuemes.... I find what you are saying to be a little bit insulting and patronising. I believe the picture that you are painting of the users of this forum is inaccurate and a tad unfair.
Click to expand...

Neeps, you are right about anyone being able to listen and decide for themselves; I'm with you on that. And I came off harsh.

What I dislike is the comparison in form of a simple poll. I bet you someone on this board will purchase a DMP3 after seeing the poll results. Think about how many of us own the MXL 67 and 603 mics because they were $99 and got decent review on this board.

A fair amount of people listened and considered the DMP3 a better preamp. When I listened I heard a consideralbe difference and it bothered me to read that some people were saying the DMP3 is a better preamp because nothing good will come from it. More DMP3's will be sold and less RNP's. If you doubt that ask one of the many salespeople on the BBS what they think. :D

We can say everything is relative (I like the earliest GBV albums over the new ones) but at the end of the day my guess is that every experienced engineer/recordist would choose the RNP over the DMP3.

Is my perspective really skewed?
 
Do you mean the old Great River MP2 or do you mean the newer MP2-NV?
Click to expand...
the MP2

Sorry, I would edit the original post, but can't.

I guess this controversy will never go away. If someone claims they can hear something, how can anyone else claim they can't ? That is why I simply urge people to look at the results of truly blind A/B tests, and listen for themelves.
But it is telling to note that at this point in the voting, 41% to 26% preferred the sound of the cheaper preamp, and more people couldn't tell any difference (34%) than liked the RNP. All three are dangerously close to the 33% one would expect from purely random choices among three alternatives !

Now the RNP is supposed to be one of the most advanced designs by a super-modern electronics whiz, while the DMP3 is one of the cheapest you can buy. Doesn't that make anybody WONDER ?

Some people have seen ghosts and UFO's....I never have. Is it because my eyes are inferior ? ....or because the ghosts didn't gather themselves up into a "mix" ?

Don't get offended anyone ! Just ribbin ya ! :D

(I guess a mix of a large number of ghosts would be easier to see than a single ghost !)
 
Last edited:
nuemes said:
Heh. Neither. I just liked the sound of the RNP a lot. Really nice recording Neeps.
Click to expand...
Me niether... in fact I had to go back to see which pre i voted for... DMP. How 'bout that...

You don't have to be a professional engineer to have a legitimate opinion on what sounds "better"... What percentage of the final audience are profesionals? Could it be that you find the RNP more "accurate"?

I think it's very telling that in a blind test... more people prefered the sound of the product significantly cheaper than it's competitor... (and not even really a direct competitor at those price points)...

I think the The DMP sounds better, but I'm not going to run out and buy a DMP because of it... I probably just won't buy an RNP...
 
The Axis said:
...If someone claims they can hear something, how can anyone else claim they can't ?
Click to expand...
Who said you can't hear what you hear? Well, OK, some people are overly aggressive.

What I see more is people, when talking about their own pre's, simply saying what their own experience and impression has been, and that's a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top