ACM & ACMP Reviews by Nuemes
- Thread starter nuemes
- Start date
mshilarious
Banned
It's all I've got at the moment other than my own stuff, which I don't try to make that quiet because I already have the ART . . . so I can't really do a comparison . . .
kidvybes
New member
...hmmm...I'm impressed......sorry, I guess I don't need to whisper...I'm impressed
nuemes
Be Here Now
ACMP73 with Neumann TLM49
The last review I did of the ACMP pre's with the SM7 mic had a few people wondering if I was setting the gain stages wrong because I found distortion in both units when setting decent levels.
To confirm:
The gain knob (the one that goes up and down in increments) acts similar to a distortion knob. The more you turn it up, the more distortion you'll get. At a high setting it's very apparent.
The output knob, on the other hand, is a volume control and will not add distortion.
When I tested the ACMP73/84 with the SM7 I had to max the output and turn the gain up enough to the point that it distorted the mic in order to get an acceptable level. Your experience may vary but that is what I've come away with.
For the test with the TLM49 I made 4 different gain/output settings to test the ACMP73 at and also tested with other pre's.
Chain: Mid/quiet male pop vocal > TLM49 > Pre > Lynx Aurora AD/DA
Same cables used for each test. The TLM49 has a presence rise that can lend to sibilance and a slow bass rolloff.
The top three were close. The song would really determine which would be best:
#1. Avalon M5: Clarity! The most clean. Tight. Deep controlled bass. Cuts through without unnecessary presence that the other pre's have. The least sibilance problems. Good vibe.
#2. Pacifica with pad on: Mids gives it a nice vibe, fairly sibilant compared to the M5. Bass not quite as nice as the M5 but it's right about there.
#3. ACMP73, Gain 1 notch from -20 (in otherwords, set low), output maxed (cleanest of the ACMP settings made): Big, more full sounding than the M5 or Pacifica (with pad on the Pacifica). Has nice a vibe. Bass a little more loose than the M5 or Pacifica. More sibilant than the Pacifica. Would require more EQ than the M5 or Pacifica in a mix. Only other worry with ACMP here is that it's so big it wouldn't stack well in multiple vocal tracks.
#4. Pacifica: somewhat scooped, bass is nice but not quite as good as the M5. Better sibilance and T's than the ACMP73
#5. ACMP73, Gain 3 notches from -20, output at 2 o'clock: Similar to the cleanest ACMP setting but sibilance becoming more apparent; T's become an issue.
#6. UA160: Sibilance very apparent, lots of bass and highs, mids somewhat week, T's and Ch's apparent, very slight distortion. Not particularly pleasant.
#7. ACMP73, Gain 5 notches from -20, output at 9 o'clock: Too sibilant, distortion becoming audible like the UA610.
#8. ACMP73, Gain at -80 (in otherwords maxed), output at near lowest level (this was the dirtiest of the ACMP settings made): Distorted though not particually bad, nice bass though loose, does have a vibe, not quite as nice as Pacifica w/ pad in. Heavy sibilance though. Sounds like overloading.
--
Much different than with the SM7 test, the ACMP (set clean) came out towards the top beating pre's in the $800 range in this test. My initial reaction to hearing it with the TLM49 was, "Whoa, this sounds big and full!"
For mics that don't require a lot of gain, the ACMP's can hang right in there with very good pre's. However, I didn't test with the EQ engaged for this one. Considering the pre itself sounds this good though, I feel pretty forgiving about any noise added by the EQ.
Major thumbs up to Chance on this one: thanks, man.
For the record, I'm not into praising gear for the sake of The Brotherhood of Man. I know a lot of folks on the forums have a bit of a hard time saying anything negative about the Group Buy pre's and mics. I'm personally not interested in brown nosing Chance or the gear I took part in purchasing. When it sounds great I say so. When it sounds like garbage I say so. If Chance worked his ass off it's worth kudos but it irrelevant to the gear itself. Confusing the two is ...confusing
The last review I did of the ACMP pre's with the SM7 mic had a few people wondering if I was setting the gain stages wrong because I found distortion in both units when setting decent levels.
To confirm:
The gain knob (the one that goes up and down in increments) acts similar to a distortion knob. The more you turn it up, the more distortion you'll get. At a high setting it's very apparent.
The output knob, on the other hand, is a volume control and will not add distortion.
When I tested the ACMP73/84 with the SM7 I had to max the output and turn the gain up enough to the point that it distorted the mic in order to get an acceptable level. Your experience may vary but that is what I've come away with.
For the test with the TLM49 I made 4 different gain/output settings to test the ACMP73 at and also tested with other pre's.
Chain: Mid/quiet male pop vocal > TLM49 > Pre > Lynx Aurora AD/DA
Same cables used for each test. The TLM49 has a presence rise that can lend to sibilance and a slow bass rolloff.
The top three were close. The song would really determine which would be best:
#1. Avalon M5: Clarity! The most clean. Tight. Deep controlled bass. Cuts through without unnecessary presence that the other pre's have. The least sibilance problems. Good vibe.
#2. Pacifica with pad on: Mids gives it a nice vibe, fairly sibilant compared to the M5. Bass not quite as nice as the M5 but it's right about there.
#3. ACMP73, Gain 1 notch from -20 (in otherwords, set low), output maxed (cleanest of the ACMP settings made): Big, more full sounding than the M5 or Pacifica (with pad on the Pacifica). Has nice a vibe. Bass a little more loose than the M5 or Pacifica. More sibilant than the Pacifica. Would require more EQ than the M5 or Pacifica in a mix. Only other worry with ACMP here is that it's so big it wouldn't stack well in multiple vocal tracks.
#4. Pacifica: somewhat scooped, bass is nice but not quite as good as the M5. Better sibilance and T's than the ACMP73
#5. ACMP73, Gain 3 notches from -20, output at 2 o'clock: Similar to the cleanest ACMP setting but sibilance becoming more apparent; T's become an issue.
#6. UA160: Sibilance very apparent, lots of bass and highs, mids somewhat week, T's and Ch's apparent, very slight distortion. Not particularly pleasant.
#7. ACMP73, Gain 5 notches from -20, output at 9 o'clock: Too sibilant, distortion becoming audible like the UA610.
#8. ACMP73, Gain at -80 (in otherwords maxed), output at near lowest level (this was the dirtiest of the ACMP settings made): Distorted though not particually bad, nice bass though loose, does have a vibe, not quite as nice as Pacifica w/ pad in. Heavy sibilance though. Sounds like overloading.
--
Much different than with the SM7 test, the ACMP (set clean) came out towards the top beating pre's in the $800 range in this test. My initial reaction to hearing it with the TLM49 was, "Whoa, this sounds big and full!"
For mics that don't require a lot of gain, the ACMP's can hang right in there with very good pre's. However, I didn't test with the EQ engaged for this one. Considering the pre itself sounds this good though, I feel pretty forgiving about any noise added by the EQ.
Major thumbs up to Chance on this one: thanks, man.
For the record, I'm not into praising gear for the sake of The Brotherhood of Man. I know a lot of folks on the forums have a bit of a hard time saying anything negative about the Group Buy pre's and mics. I'm personally not interested in brown nosing Chance or the gear I took part in purchasing. When it sounds great I say so. When it sounds like garbage I say so. If Chance worked his ass off it's worth kudos but it irrelevant to the gear itself. Confusing the two is ...confusing
cnix
New member
These are the type of results I got also with my ACMP-73 and 84. Great sounding pre, big sound, no hum or buzz even with the eq engaged. Now to be honest, I was using some fairly hot mics on my voice and acoustic guitar that did not require a lot of gain.
I recorded both through the 73 with no eq, and ran the tracks through both for eq to see which I preferred. (I did test the pre on the 84, sounded just like the 73) The 73 eq was nice and shaped my voice in a good way. The eq on the 84 did a fantastic job shaping my voice, my best sounding vocal take ever. Pre's that I have experience with in my homestudio range from the RNP, BG-1 from Broadhurst Gardens, and P-1 from A-Designs It is clear that we have some quality gear at bargin prices.
I tried my SM7b with the pre's on a soft vocal, and came up with some noise in the chain. I figure this is the lack of shielding issue Brad spoke about, and I will do the fix sometime, just not in a hurry because it is not an issue for me at this time.
For those still waiting on your gear, and your patience is getting stretched, just know that it is worth the wait. Hopefully yours will ship very soon, and all will have a Merry Christmas.
Charlie
I recorded both through the 73 with no eq, and ran the tracks through both for eq to see which I preferred. (I did test the pre on the 84, sounded just like the 73) The 73 eq was nice and shaped my voice in a good way. The eq on the 84 did a fantastic job shaping my voice, my best sounding vocal take ever. Pre's that I have experience with in my homestudio range from the RNP, BG-1 from Broadhurst Gardens, and P-1 from A-Designs It is clear that we have some quality gear at bargin prices.
I tried my SM7b with the pre's on a soft vocal, and came up with some noise in the chain. I figure this is the lack of shielding issue Brad spoke about, and I will do the fix sometime, just not in a hurry because it is not an issue for me at this time.
For those still waiting on your gear, and your patience is getting stretched, just know that it is worth the wait. Hopefully yours will ship very soon, and all will have a Merry Christmas.
Charlie
mshilarious
Banned
One source of explanation for various observations about hum is the environment. Some houses, mine included, just seem to be EMI hell.
Adding shielding to every unit is probably still a good idea, because you never know if your quiet unit might become less so in another venue.
Adding shielding to every unit is probably still a good idea, because you never know if your quiet unit might become less so in another venue.
I appreciate good honest reviews. Thats the only way to improve things.
This is what I hate about todays recording magazines. They please their advertisers even if it means compromising their integrety. Years ago there was a magazine called REP. Whatever they reviewed, they gave the pro's and con's. They didn't rely much on advertisers, but the subscription was around $200.00 a year and only availoable to recording pros,
This is what I hate about todays recording magazines. They please their advertisers even if it means compromising their integrety. Years ago there was a magazine called REP. Whatever they reviewed, they gave the pro's and con's. They didn't rely much on advertisers, but the subscription was around $200.00 a year and only availoable to recording pros,
antichef
pornk rock
- I guess the cons were limited to other magazines (and that's where they still are)?
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Thanks for this thread nuemes. I've had my 73 pres for a couple/few weeks now but I've left the new 1200's plugged into them. Last night I finally got around to plugging in some other mics.
Based on your reviews, I was most anxious about the SM7. Maybe there's a lot of variation in our sources (mine was just spoken word) but I was able to get enough clean gain for a very good signal on the SM7 without any distortion. The signal was certainly not as hot as with any of the condensers, but it was plenty usable in a mix.
I'm gonna have to try again with singing and/or micing a bass cab.
Based on your reviews, I was most anxious about the SM7. Maybe there's a lot of variation in our sources (mine was just spoken word) but I was able to get enough clean gain for a very good signal on the SM7 without any distortion. The signal was certainly not as hot as with any of the condensers, but it was plenty usable in a mix.
I'm gonna have to try again with singing and/or micing a bass cab.
Weasel9992
New member
That's been my experience as well. I haven't experienced much trouble with the SM7, but I usually reach for that mic with pretty loud sources anyway I guess. The 73 is a little noisy...definitely a tiny bit of hum with the EQ engaged at 360, and the hum gets louder as you apply more gain to that EQ band, but I can definitely work around it.
I'm looking forward to the shielding fix.
Frank
nuemes
Be Here Now
This is interesting; it could mean my SM7 needs more gain than most or that both my 73 & 84 are of a slightly different ilk than others.
But I also wonder if it has to do with comparison. WhiteStrat, I'm not familiar w/ your gear. Do you have a clean pre with a lot of gain to compare the ACMP to?
Not that it matters, actually. If it sounds good...
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
This is interesting; it could mean my SM7 needs more gain than most or that both my 73 & 84 are of a slightly different ilk than others.
But I also wonder if it has to do with comparison. WhiteStrat, I'm not familiar w/ your gear. Do you have a clean pre with a lot of gain to compare the ACMP to?
Not that it matters, actually. If it sounds good...
Yeah, I've got a few options that have done well with my SM7. I'll try to do some comparisons later tonight.
nuemes
Be Here Now
Yes!
Yeah. TapeOp is the only one I have much faith in these days. SOS seems ok too.
It is hard to make gear comparisons, no doubt. What sounds good to one person doesn't always work for another; there's a bit of danger in posting reviews, esp. if the reviewer makes errors/isn't experienced which pretty much anybody here is prone to.
That's why it makes so much sense to post on the forum though too - we can advise each other accordingly.
My hope is a few Gear Co's are reading these forums and will take something positive from it and future Group Buyers will be encouraged by what they find here to join in next time around.
mshilarious
Banned
Try this: everybody get out their SM7Bs, or As, or plain SM7s, or any other dynamic mic with sensitivity of less than -55dBV/Pa.
If, indeed, the output gain control is just an attenuator, set that on max. Set the input gain control for +50dB of gain.
Now, everybody do a sample like this:
VO: "This is an ACMPxx"
Whisper: "This is an ACMPxx"
The VO should clock in at 104dBSPL or so at the SM7 capsule, so the output level should be around -59dBV/Pa + (104dBSPL - 94dBSPL) + 50dB gain, or +1dBV, which is +3dBu. Check that on your meter. If you are way too low or way too high, ADJUST YOUR SPEAKING VOICE.
Post the resulting file.
Now everybody can compare their units . . .
If, indeed, the output gain control is just an attenuator, set that on max. Set the input gain control for +50dB of gain.
Now, everybody do a sample like this:
VO: "This is an ACMPxx"
Whisper: "This is an ACMPxx"
The VO should clock in at 104dBSPL or so at the SM7 capsule, so the output level should be around -59dBV/Pa + (104dBSPL - 94dBSPL) + 50dB gain, or +1dBV, which is +3dBu. Check that on your meter. If you are way too low or way too high, ADJUST YOUR SPEAKING VOICE.
Post the resulting file.
Now everybody can compare their units . . .
zed32
Re-Attached Member
Per the Manual...
"Volume control. Similar to the fader on a mixing console, this control is laced after the input gain/EQ stage but before the output stage. This allows for trimming of the input signal between 6db steps of the input switch, as well as allowing the input to be intentionally overdriven. The normal position for this control is wide open."
The way I have used the pre's is start with this "wide open" and then adjust the input gain to get me close to 0db on my converters, then i turn it back just a little if needed. I have never had it at less than about 75%. Once started working this way, I've not had any distortion issues, and have had plenty of gain. Increasing the gain does raise the noise floor, but I've not run into unwanted distortion. (Anymore) And I have not had to turn the input gain more than 4 clicks. Of course, so fat I've only used and ACM-1200 and some ACM-3 through it, but I've gotten nice "creamy" vocals, and good guitar tones.
"Volume control. Similar to the fader on a mixing console, this control is laced after the input gain/EQ stage but before the output stage. This allows for trimming of the input signal between 6db steps of the input switch, as well as allowing the input to be intentionally overdriven. The normal position for this control is wide open."
The way I have used the pre's is start with this "wide open" and then adjust the input gain to get me close to 0db on my converters, then i turn it back just a little if needed. I have never had it at less than about 75%. Once started working this way, I've not had any distortion issues, and have had plenty of gain. Increasing the gain does raise the noise floor, but I've not run into unwanted distortion. (Anymore) And I have not had to turn the input gain more than 4 clicks. Of course, so fat I've only used and ACM-1200 and some ACM-3 through it, but I've gotten nice "creamy" vocals, and good guitar tones.
Weasel9992
New member
Just to overkill this a little more,
1. the "Output gain" (all the way to the right, next to the meter) should be maxed?
2. The "input gain" (all the way to the left) is used to get closest to where you need to get and back the "output gain" off to taste?
This would be the approach to get the cleanest signal?
Thanks.
1. the "Output gain" (all the way to the right, next to the meter) should be maxed?
2. The "input gain" (all the way to the left) is used to get closest to where you need to get and back the "output gain" off to taste?
This would be the approach to get the cleanest signal?
Thanks.