for those of you who are not able to get your hands on lots of preamps
to compare, perhaps this may assist you a bit. over the past few
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). all
tracks went straight from the pre to a roland vs1880, and monitored on
tannoy active reveals with no eq and no effects. 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. this is the only transformer-based unit in
the group, and you can tell immediately how much difference a
transformer can make compared to an all solid-state unit. 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.

Thanks!

Jerry Steiger (stuck with a Mackie, not even a VLZ, wishing for a Millennia)

Thank you for taking the time to compare and post.

John L Rice


"jnorman" wrote in message
om...
for those of you who are not able to get your hands on lots of preamps
to compare, perhaps this may assist you a bit. over the past few
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). all
tracks went straight from the pre to a roland vs1880, and monitored on
tannoy active reveals with no eq and no effects. 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. this is the only transformer-based unit in
the group, and you can tell immediately how much difference a
transformer can make compared to an all solid-state unit. 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.

Thanks for taking the time to detail all this. I've not had hands-on
experience with most of those pre's, and I'm in the process of designing
some for my low-cost multitracking setup.

As an old-time audio guy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by
"grainy". Can you please explain? Thanks!

--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

"The one who dies with the most parts LOSES! What do you need??"

In article writes:

As an old-time audio guy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by
"grainy". Can you please explain? Thanks!

If you like a kind of brittle and strident high end (some people
describe this as "cuts through the mix like a knife") then you don't
call it "grainy." If it sounds brittle and strident to you, then you
call it "grainy."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 24 Nov 2003 07:23:09 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:


In article writes:

As an old-time audio guy, I'm not quite sure what you mean by
"grainy". Can you please explain? Thanks!

If you like a kind of brittle and strident high end (some people
describe this as "cuts through the mix like a knife") then you don't
call it "grainy." If it sounds brittle and strident to you, then you
call it "grainy."

Describing subtle differences in sound is a tricky business. It seems
to me that only the most experienced audio pros (I'm not one of them)
are able to describe and identify what preamp is being used without
comparing it to something else as a reference, assuming the unit isn't
total garbage. I can't speak for Mackie but based on my limited
experience I wouldn't have described the Behringer as "grainy" in the
mid-highs. Now that I've had a chance to compare it and the RNP on
acoustic guitar I think it's a pretty accurate description. I would
guess that how important this is depends on what's being recorded.

Anyway, I appreciate the comparisons.

G.

In article writes:

Describing subtle differences in sound is a tricky business. It seems
to me that only the most experienced audio pros (I'm not one of them)
are able to describe and identify what preamp is being used without
comparing it to something else as a reference, assuming the unit isn't
total garbage.

Acutally, I find that comparing the sound to something that's common
enough to be familiar is a pretty good way to do it when you're
talking to someone who isn't going to listen for himself before
buying. I've described things as "If you know what a Mackie sounds
like, you have a pretty good idea of what **** sounds like." And if
you don't know what a Mackie sounds like and aren't looking for
something that costs five to ten times that per channel, then just get
a Mackie and don't worry if a Behringer that costs a little less
sounds any bette or worse.

But it's best of course to listen for yourself.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

jnorman wrote:


this is the only transformer-based unit in
the group, and you can tell immediately how much difference a
transformer can make compared to an all solid-state unit. the 1272
has lots of punch in the lower mids, highs are noticeably rollled off,
bottom end is loose sounding on piano.

Thanks for the info on the different preamps. I have not used a 1272,
but I can say that these are not necessarily traits associated with the
use of transformers. I have 2 channels of Hardy M1 with transformers and
there is no roll of of highs or loose bottom end. Kind of like the toob
thing, the final result is more a result of the choice of transformers
and design of the product than just the fact that a transformer is
involved. B.t.w. I also have a Millennia HV3D and previously had the
Sytek 2&2.

Thanks for taking the time to post your results.

-Rob

I thought I would chime in here. I've been putting a Manley Slam!
through it's paces over the last few days and since it is so expensive
there might be some interest. So far I've been evaluating the mic pre
and limiter. I did a comparison with a pair of custom made EMI Redd 47
tube mic preamps. The EMI's were made without any cost considerations.

Cutting to the chase, I have to say, the mic pre in the Slam! is
probably the best sounding mic pre I have ever heard. It was open,
airy on the top, extremely clear and present in the mid-range, and the
bottom was huge, tight, and clean. I have never experience a mic pre
with more gain! There's a ton of gain. Kind of off topic, but an
observation none the less; when I switched in the limiter, the sound
did not change. It was surprisingly transparent and retained all the
detail as if there was nothing added to the signal path. The
limiter/compressor is very flexible. It was interesting how fast and
easy it was to dial in a setting.

The EMI's use exotic resistors and capacitors throughout the signal
path. There's an over built power supply, custom switches, and custom
wound transformers. The difference between the EMI and the Slam was
that the Slam was cleaner, a little clearer in the mid-range, and the
bottom was totally unrestrained. Very impressive for an "assembly
line" (if you will) unit. As far as price to performance; you'll have
to take that into consideration. Personally, it's reasonable for you
get.

Steve








Rob Adelman wrote in message ...
jnorman wrote:


this is the only transformer-based unit in
the group, and you can tell immediately how much difference a
transformer can make compared to an all solid-state unit. the 1272
has lots of punch in the lower mids, highs are noticeably rollled off,
bottom end is loose sounding on piano.

Thanks for the info on the different preamps. I have not used a 1272,
but I can say that these are not necessarily traits associated with the
use of transformers. I have 2 channels of Hardy M1 with transformers and
there is no roll of of highs or loose bottom end. Kind of like the toob
thing, the final result is more a result of the choice of transformers
and design of the product than just the fact that a transformer is
involved. B.t.w. I also have a Millennia HV3D and previously had the
Sytek 2&2.

Thanks for taking the time to post your results.

-Rob

Rob Adelman wrote in message ...
jnorman wrote:

I have 2 channels of Hardy M1 with transformers .......I also have a
Millennia HV3D

-Rob

Rob, how do the John Hardy and The Millennia compare in your opinion?

J_West

Johnston West wrote:


Rob, how do the John Hardy and The Millennia compare in your opinion?

To be honest, I haven't had a huge variety of different sources through
them, but my experience so far is pretty much what everybody says. They
are both so good you really can't go wrong with either. Neither one are
an in your face sort of preamp like an API or some of the Neves', etc.
Both super clean, very balanced. And both have plenty of gain with the
Millennia having a bit more I think. The Hardy would be more towards the
in your face camp but very subtle. I think I prefer the Millennia for
acoustic guitar and the M1 for electric and vocals, but you could
certainly switch that with no problem. I don't really hear a
"transformer sound" with the Hardy, but maybe that is what gives it the
slight edge for balls. And they both seem to do fine with all my dynamic
and condenser microphones. I don't have any ribbons so I can't comment
on that. I like to use 8 mics for the drums and sort it out in the mix,
so the 8 channel HV3D gets used on the set, though next time I might try
the snare through the Hardy.

-Rob

"jnorman" wrote in message
om...
for those of you who are not able to get your hands on lots of preamps
to compare, perhaps this may assist you a bit. over the past few
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). all
tracks went straight from the pre to a roland vs1880, and monitored on
tannoy active reveals with no eq and no effects. here were my results
- take 'em with a grain of salt.

I did a similar shoot-out last night with a buddy. We took four Oktava
MC-012s and wrapped them into a bundle, and then ran each one through a
different preamp. We used an RNP, a Sytek with stock and BB channels, and an
Avalon U5 DI preamp. Since the Avalon isn't a mic pre we took a direct out
from the RNP with a little gain to drive the DI.

We then cleaned out the percussion cabinet and rattled, clanged and plinged
everything we could find and recorded the results of all four mics into a
VS-1680, using a set of Mackie monitors for playback. We also did some tests
with a lovely Martin guitar, and a couple of DI tests through the instrument
jack on the RNP compared to the Avalon (without RNP) using a Smith bass and
a Fender fretless bass. Note that we're both new to this realm of outboard
mic pres and are still trying to sort out what are the differences that
we're hearing.

Not having time to write this to any level of detail, I'll have to
summarize:
Sytek stock channel - very detailed and a maybe a little fuller on the low
end than the RNP. Still my first choice for cymbals.

Sytek BB channel - whatever this circuit does well, it doesn't seem to do it
in this test. It always sound clear and clean enough, but to our ears it's
just missing "something" that the non-BB channel has. Next time we'll get a
few LD mics up and try some vocals, so we'll see how that works out.

RNP - Very detailed and clean, a little punchy in the midrange, and a nice
low end. Very similar to the Sytek stock channel.

RNP to Avalon DI - this was really a tone test of the Avalon, although we
kept the tone control bypassed for all tests. The rule seemed to be if it
was made of wood, it sounded best through the Avalon. It has a noticeable
roll-off in the high end which nicely took some of the edge of the
percussion.

DI tests: Avalon vs. RNP - This was the big surprise for me, since we've
been very impressed with the sound of the Smith through the Avalon recorded
and live. A lot of the same attributes that I had picked up from the Avalon
could be heard on the RNP also, a really nice fat bottom with a little sense
of growl from the strings. The punchiness of the RNP brought out some of the
tone that my buddy was using EQ to get from the Avalon. Still there was a
subtle "phat" sound that the Avalon had that just couldn't be pulled out the
RNP.

At the end of the night we had two conclusions. First that we collectively
are starting to pickup some nice sounding gear. Second was that the RNP is a
pretty versatile unit. It's like the RNP was in second place by a small
margin on everything we ran through it, where the other units either sounded
great or not-quite-there. Since the RNP is my only outboard pre, it's good
that it can cover a wide range of uses.

We're going to do a follow up session at some point with a variety of mics
and some vocals, so it's not over yet.

Sean

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

I did a similar shoot-out last night with a buddy. We took four Oktava
MC-012s and wrapped them into a bundle, and then ran each one through a
different preamp. We used an RNP, a Sytek with stock and BB channels, and an
Avalon U5 DI preamp. Since the Avalon isn't a mic pre we took a direct out
from the RNP with a little gain to drive the DI.


Thanks for the report..... There is some question about the quality
consistency
of the Oktava MC-012s........ Did you cross reference the mics during
your tests, to confirm the results?

J_West

"Johnston West" wrote in message
om...
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

I did a similar shoot-out last night with a buddy. We took four Oktava
MC-012s and wrapped them into a bundle, and then ran each one through a
different preamp. We used an RNP, a Sytek with stock and BB channels,
and an
Avalon U5 DI preamp. Since the Avalon isn't a mic pre we took a direct
out
from the RNP with a little gain to drive the DI.


Thanks for the report..... There is some question about the quality
consistency
of the Oktava MC-012s........ Did you cross reference the mics during
your tests, to confirm the results?

Yes, all of the mics have been used on all of the devices and are consistant
sounding, at least to our ears. The -good- Oktavas are consistant and easy
to pick out, IMHO. The bad ones I've heard aren't just "a little off", they
sound like crap!

For the next round we're going to try out a Rode NT1, an AT 4033, and an
Oktava 319.

Sean