Dav Bg1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Supercreep
  • Start date Start date
No need to speculate further on this until we've used the correct cables for this application. That will happen tonight. We will try both XLR to XLR, AND XLR to TRS--neither of which has been tried by us yet. I myself and pretty convinced that this is the issue.

If you're wondering what the final result was, check back in tomorrow. We'll post our findings then.

Thanks to everyone for helping us think this through.
 
BigRay said:
you arent a customer and have no experience with the pre...you are spreading rumours...thats what it amounts to.
Click to expand...
I agree. Beter to tell about your own experience, not second hand stuff. It's like when someone posts their "opinion" about a piece of gear by just quoting other reviews.

Tim
 
Incanus said:
No need to speculate further on this until we've used the correct cables for this application. That will happen tonight. We will try both XLR to XLR, AND XLR to TRS--neither of which has been tried by us yet. I myself and pretty convinced that this is the issue.

If you're wondering what the final result was, check back in tomorrow. We'll post our findings then.

Thanks to everyone for helping us think this through.
Click to expand...

Why spoil all the fun with use of the scientific method? This place has gotten pretty boing since DJL left. I was kinda hoping for some HR trolls to stick around so we could play with them. Your objective, scientific (and adult) approach ruins everything.
 
XLR to TRS cable for the win. Sounds great. More on that later. Mick was right.


Thanks, everybody.
 
Okay. Just got in from a cool little session with Incanus. All I can compare this to is my Joemeek TwinQ, the RNP, and my stock MOTU pres. With Josephson C42MP as drum overheads the DAV BG1 sounds like candy. Big and sweet and freindly.

I'd say the RNP has a little more midrangey character thing going on, and may yet be preferable on my voice. The Joemeek is still going to be the snare/kick pre because of the iron/eq/comp options. I'll definitely not sell either. But the DAV is definitely our OH pre. I think I made a good choice. In fact, it is a no-brainer. Good call, BigRay.

Oh yeah... and it's absolutely quiet.
 
sdelsolray said:
Why spoil all the fun with use of the scientific method? This place has gotten pretty boing since DJL left. I was kinda hoping for some HR trolls to stick around so we could play with them. Your objective, scientific (and adult) approach ruins everything.
Click to expand...


Good one!!! I assume you are being funny. Yes, the scientific method may be boring, but it gets right to the pertinent facts. It's good to get that stuff squared away so that we can get on to the fun stuff--actually recording!!!!

Thanks everybody, I think we have a handle on this now.
 
Supercreep said:
I'd say the RNP has a little more midrangey character thing going on, and may yet be preferable on my voice. The Joemeek is still going to be the snare/kick pre because of the iron/eq/comp options. I'll definitely not sell either. But the DAV is definitely our OH pre. I think I made a good choice. In fact, it is a no-brainer. Good call, BigRay.

Oh yeah... and it's absolutely quiet.
Click to expand...

please post some clips :) i'm lookin to purchase this aswell, use it particularly for vocals. It would be interesting to hear how the RNP and DAV compare on the vocals.
 
twokp. said:
please post some clips :) i'm lookin to purchase this aswell, use it particularly for vocals. It would be interesting to hear how the RNP and DAV compare on the vocals.
Click to expand...


Well, we don't have identical setups or rooms - so I imagine they're going to sound a bit different. I record in a very small studio.

The RNP just isn't as clean as the BG1. It's not as big sounding, either. The DAV sounds expensive. But like I said, the RNP has some character going for it, and I know it suits my voice for layering. They are both useful, and if you had to pick one or the other either would do you well. I do think the RNP likes the RNC for fine tuning output gain, which is why I think the ATTY is a perfect match for the BG1.

Basically for 700 bucks you can pull the trigger on the BG1 and not ever turn back. For the money it's a very easy choice.
 
Supercreep said:
Basically for 700 bucks you can pull the trigger on the BG1 and not ever turn back. For the money it's a very easy choice.
Click to expand...

Another convert, Hallelujah ! :D
I want to add the disclaimer, FOR ANY Money it is an obvious choice. Ive had the privilege of owning pres from 1,000.00 to 3,500.00 and not a single one of them touched the DAV. Not even close.

FWIW, the DAV was designed to replace the pres on Decca Records console. The pres on the console were neve. The people in charge at decca wanted BIG sound, full of character, clean, transparent, and simple , no frills design aesthetics. Unlimited budget. Most importanly, they wanted something different than every other "neve-ish" pre out there. The pre became so popular, that the decision to make a standalone/modular version was imminent..the forefather of the BG-1 had only one switch........


And Supercreep's experience is the latest in a long line of success stories. Mick's refusal to allow retail marts to carry his products is also inspiring, and shows his devotion to both retaining the mom and pop nature of his company, and keeping prices low. (retailers usually tack on ridiculous percentages to retain profits) World class sound is now accessible to anyone...you dont have to pay thousands or even a thousand to have the tools. I find it all very exciting. :)
 
In the early 1970's, I remember being in the process of outfitting a studio with a Scully board and one of the sales pitches was that it could be tailored/adjusted to "Decca-like" response. I don't regret, not for an instant, having purchased a DAV1. What a superior piece of gear---and well under a $grand.

I think it's way beyond overkill for the average soundcard and it's output is known to be unabashedly for pro gear levels---not -10dB soundcard inputs. If you want to use it this way, pad (Egad!) the output of the DAV1.

This thing is a legacy item, a heritage piece, an heirloom.

Paj
8^)
 
Got a question about specs. The BG1 lists it's noise spec as -110db. The RNP is listed as -120db. Many here say that the BG1 is quieter than the RNP. Obviously the ears are the final judge. But, how does this happen and are specs worth anything at all?

Drooling over the BG1 like everyone else and I'm sure there's one in my future, but I'm curious how the specs relate to the sound.
 
Pay no attention to specs. Ive heard them both and I will say without a shadow of a doubt that the DAV is quieter than the RNP that I used. ...obviously builders can doctor specs up to suit their needs...it should be illegal, but it doesnt seem to be , as most everyone engages in it. not everyone uses the same measurement methods for sound either...


.
Gamelan said:
Got a question about specs. The BG1 lists it's noise spec as -110db. The RNP is listed as -120db. Many here say that the BG1 is quieter than the RNP. Obviously the ears are the final judge. But, how does this happen and are specs worth anything at all?

Drooling over the BG1 like everyone else and I'm sure there's one in my future, but I'm curious how the specs relate to the sound.
Click to expand...
 
:) :) :) :) :) :)
Paj said:
In the early 1970's, I remember being in the process of outfitting a studio with a Scully board and one of the sales pitches was that it could be tailored/adjusted to "Decca-like" response. I don't regret, not for an instant, having purchased a DAV1. What a superior piece of gear---and well under a $grand.

I think it's way beyond overkill for the average soundcard and it's output is known to be unabashedly for pro gear levels---not -10dB soundcard inputs. If you want to use it this way, pad (Egad!) the output of the DAV1.

This thing is a legacy item, a heritage piece, an heirloom.

Paj
8^)
Click to expand...
 
Hey guys -

Does engaging the pad on the BG-1 significantly change it's sonic properties?

Without the pad I can only run it at it's lowest possible gain setting.


Which is preferable? A quick test reveals a slight difference when I hit the converters a little harder without the pad - but it could just be in my mind.

With the pad engaged I can work the pre a lot harder.


What do you think?
 
Supercreep said:
Hey guys -

Does engaging the pad on the BG-1 significantly change it's sonic properties?

Without the pad I can only run it at it's lowest possible gain setting.


Which is preferable? A quick test reveals a slight difference when I hit the converters a little harder without the pad - but it could just be in my mind.

With the pad engaged I can work the pre a lot harder.


What do you think?
Click to expand...
It's six of one, half dozen of the other... simply a matter of where you are padding...

The pad switch is at the input to the amp... the amp gain is actually fixed... the amp gain control is simply a variable attenuator on the output ...

To keep the noise floor down... you'll want to hit the input as hard as you can without clipping and distorting... It's all a balancing act between noise and distortion... too low at the input...noise, too high...distortion

I'd say leave the pad unengaged...
 
Leave the pad unengaged. Always preferable. Engaging will raise the noise floor, though necessity is the mother of invention. ;) no, there wont be a significant change, but technically leaving it off is better..

Supercreep said:
Hey guys -

Does engaging the pad on the BG-1 significantly change it's sonic properties?

Without the pad I can only run it at it's lowest possible gain setting.


Which is preferable? A quick test reveals a slight difference when I hit the converters a little harder without the pad - but it could just be in my mind.

With the pad engaged I can work the pre a lot harder.


What do you think?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top