preamp shootout - Daking MP1 vs UA710 vs SSL Alpha Channel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris Tondreau
  • Start date Start date
Chris Tondreau

Chris Tondreau

Member
Hey all;

I picked up an SSL X-Logic Alpha Channel and, for the sake of reference, did a shootout between it and two other preamps in the approx $1000/channel (MSRP) range. I put it up against the Universal Audio "TwinFinity" 710 (in both solid state and tube modes) and the Daking Mic-Pre One. (MP1)

It is not a perfect shoot-out, as I recorded different performances for each instance. I tried to keep the performances (and mic position, etc.) as close as possible. One could validly argue that many of the differences they might hear are due to these factors.

Here is a link to the files. shared google drive folder

There are three files - all recorded and exported in mono. There is no processing done to any of the tracks, except adjusting the levels relative to each other such that they are all within 0.1db of all the others.

All three files have excerpts in the exact same order:
1. Daking MP1
2. UA710 (full tube mode)
3. UA710 (full solid state mode)
4. SSL Alpha Channel (No EQ, no limiting - just straight and flat)

1. Vocal - Three lines of "Girlfriend" by Matthew Sweet. Each segment for each mic pre is about ten seconds in the order listed above. Mic = Rode K2.

2. Bass - A 15 second segment of a bassline from an original song I wrote years ago. Each segment is recorded by plugging the bass directly into the hi-z input on the preamp and arranged in the order listed above.

3. Acoustic Guitar - A ten-second segment of "When the Children Cry" by White Lion. A Norman B20 acoustic guitar miked up with a single Studio Projects C4 with the cardiod capsule pointed at the 12th fret. Segments in the same order as listed above.

Thoughts:

In all cases, the SSL was the most transparent. Aside from that, they all sounded remarkably similar.

Bass:
SSL - most transparent
UA710 (full tube) - most robust sounding

Vocal:
SSL - most transparent, also the biggest sounding
UA710 (full tube) - seemed to add a bit of weight to the mids

Ac Gtr:
SSL - most transparent
Daking - most body - somewhat coloured in mids
710 (solid state) - next to the SSL, the most "honest" sounding.

Overall, the differences were very subtle and subjective. Though the SSL was the most transparent, the differences in tone/colour/etc were very, very subtle. I found it very difficult to characterize any of them as being that much different from the others.

A few additional notes about the SSL:
The EQ is very, very nice. I've never even considered tracking with EQ before, but with this in play, I would have no hesitation. The "lite limiting" is great for controlling performances that would be very dynamic. It's pretty transparent until you really whack it hard, at which point, it can break up pretty noticeably. I've not had much of a chance to muck with the "variable harmonic drive" yet, as I recorded these tracks without driving the input stage any more than one would to get a nice clean recording with a low noise floor. (the noise in the bass track is the bass....)

The SPDIF out is a nice feature. It gives me an extra input to my interface. It also sends two different signals out. SPDIF, being two channel, does the following:
SPDIF left - includes any processing that might be present - any EQ, the lite limiting, etc.
SPDIF right - is the clean, unaffected signal - straight in, straight out.

This means you can record both and if that EQ didn't sound as good as you thought it might, you still have the version with everything bypassed.

I'd be interested in what anyone else hears.

CT
 
All sound nice, the SSL is probably the most transparent, as you said, but it sometimes sounds a bit 'forward'.

Relatively little difference, as you said :)
I'd say that any of these would be a good bet on most/all sources.
 
I'm not sure what I was expecting. I think I was expecting the SSL to be a step up - and it is a little - from the other two. However, if it was a step down, I'd have been disappointed and would have felt like I blew my money on it. On the other hand, if it was a lot better than the other two, I'd have felt like I'd gotten hosed....twice. haha

I don't think any of the three are known for their sound or their character, and this shoot-out seems to bear that out. It shows that all three are good, solid, clean pres.

Chris
 
Absolutely.

Personally, unless a pre is super distinctive in character most of the hype about preamps is way overblown. I think there is a great tendency to get snobbish about lower end gear, when the sound actually comes from the musicians, not the kit. I have a few outboard pre's for colour and saturation, but I wouldn't pretend to say that I couldn't record without them or that they are essential.
 
When I first got the UA710, and then again when I got the Daking, I did comparisons between them and included the pres in the Steinberg MR816 and those in the ADA8000.

What I found, in very general terms, was that the pres in the Behringer were very usable. Using the pres in the MR816 as a benchmark - and the reviews for that particular unit always enthusiastically praised the quality of the preamps in it - the Behringers stacked up rather well. Now, there was a measurable improvement in quality, but it wasn't exactly day and night.

In practice, I found that mixing tracks recorded through the MR816 stacked better than tracks recorded through another Behringer unit I used to have - the 2442FX-PRO mixer. AFAIK, the pres in that and the pres in the ADA8000 are the same. As a result, tracks recorded with the MR816 almost seemed to mix themselves, whereas I had to fight a lot harder to get to basically the same place with tracks recorded with the Behringer.

When I compared those to the Daking and the UA710, the difference really was "day and night."

Could I record a project entirely through the Behringer pres and make it sound good? I'm sure I could. But I'm positive that if I used the better pres, supported by those in the MR816 when necessary, I would definitely come out with a superior product in about a quarter of the time.

The shootout confirms that those three pres - all in *basically* the same price range, are all very comparable.

I'm a little curious as to how much difference I would notice between those and something like a Neve or API - which would clock in at about double the price again.

Chris
 
Chris Tondreau said:
I'm a little curious as to how much difference I would notice between those and something like a Neve or API - which would clock in at about double the price again.
Click to expand...

You'd notice a fiur bit more difference. API and Neve pre's are famed for having a certain 'tone' (i.e. can be quite coloured).

It'd be hard to sort out a 'fair' shootout with a neve style pre vs the ones you have here, as you can control the 'colour' somewhat by driving the input hard and pulling back on the trim - it would make it very easy to make the neve sound very different, in a variety of ways (some pres have variable impedance too...)
 
Chris Tondreau said:
Hey all;

I picked up an SSL X-Logic Alpha Channel and, for the sake of reference, did a shootout between it and two other preamps in the approx $1000/channel (MSRP) range. I put it up against the Universal Audio "TwinFinity" 710 (in both solid state and tube modes) and the Daking Mic-Pre One. (MP1)

It is not a perfect shoot-out, as I recorded different performances for each instance. I tried to keep the performances (and mic position, etc.) as close as possible. One could validly argue that many of the differences they might hear are due to these factors.

Here is a link to the files. shared google drive folder

There are three files - all recorded and exported in mono. There is no processing done to any of the tracks, except adjusting the levels relative to each other such that they are all within 0.1db of all the others.

All three files have excerpts in the exact same order:
1. Daking MP1
2. UA710 (full tube mode)
3. UA710 (full solid state mode)
4. SSL Alpha Channel (No EQ, no limiting - just straight and flat)

1. Vocal - Three lines of "Girlfriend" by Matthew Sweet. Each segment for each mic pre is about ten seconds in the order listed above. Mic = Rode K2.

2. Bass - A 15 second segment of a bassline from an original song I wrote years ago. Each segment is recorded by plugging the bass directly into the hi-z input on the preamp and arranged in the order listed above.

3. Acoustic Guitar - A ten-second segment of "When the Children Cry" by White Lion. A Norman B20 acoustic guitar miked up with a single Studio Projects C4 with the cardiod capsule pointed at the 12th fret. Segments in the same order as listed above.

Thoughts:

In all cases, the SSL was the most transparent. Aside from that, they all sounded remarkably similar.

Bass:
SSL - most transparent
UA710 (full tube) - most robust sounding

Vocal:
SSL - most transparent, also the biggest sounding
UA710 (full tube) - seemed to add a bit of weight to the mids

Ac Gtr:
SSL - most transparent
Daking - most body - somewhat coloured in mids
710 (solid state) - next to the SSL, the most "honest" sounding.

Overall, the differences were very subtle and subjective. Though the SSL was the most transparent, the differences in tone/colour/etc were very, very subtle. I found it very difficult to characterize any of them as being that much different from the others.

A few additional notes about the SSL:
The EQ is very, very nice. I've never even considered tracking with EQ before, but with this in play, I would have no hesitation. The "lite limiting" is great for controlling performances that would be very dynamic. It's pretty transparent until you really whack it hard, at which point, it can break up pretty noticeably. I've not had much of a chance to muck with the "variable harmonic drive" yet, as I recorded these tracks without driving the input stage any more than one would to get a nice clean recording with a low noise floor. (the noise in the bass track is the bass....)

The SPDIF out is a nice feature. It gives me an extra input to my interface. It also sends two different signals out. SPDIF, being two channel, does the following:
SPDIF left - includes any processing that might be present - any EQ, the lite limiting, etc.
SPDIF right - is the clean, unaffected signal - straight in, straight out.

This means you can record both and if that EQ didn't sound as good as you thought it might, you still have the version with everything bypassed.

I'd be interested in what anyone else hears.

CT
Click to expand...
Hi
Could you please upload again those files? Iam looking for a preamp and those 3 are the main options.. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top