Anyone want to stake a claim in where the money is at?

One is brighter sounding, more metalic sounding.. Two is warmer sounding and not as brittle..

They both sound like non transformer type solid state pres.. and they are very close in sound...

I don't care much for either, but I think perhaps two is best but like I said, I don't really care for either..

methinks its numero dos tambien

I prefer 2. Number one is edgy and as kurt said, "metallic."

WHat preamps are we listening to? Mic? Converters? There are other factors at play here.

WHat preamps are we listening to? Mic? Converters? There are other factors at play here

Really there are no other factorers at play here. There are a million microphones out there and there are a million A/D converters. There are a million rooms and a million different settings on a guitar amp. Not to muntion a million different guitars.

You just have to pick one of each and use everything in the same manner. Which I did. Same guitar w/same controls, same amp w/same sttings, same mic in the same place, the pre was obviously switched, and the same A/Ds into the same recorder.

You don't say what mic you are using either.. a crap mic into the best pre in the world can make a baaaad sound! Like I said, both sounds weren't the greatest guitar tone I have ever heard..

Also posting them as two seperate samples, makes it difficult to instantaniously switch between them. If you had posted it as one continuous stream, it would have been easier to compare them.

So what pres and mic are we talking about??

A full understanding of gain staging and proper routing is essential in order to properly evaluate different tools; Balanced line outs to true balanced line ins, etc.

Especially when you're comparing something as subtle as the differences between two mic preamps.

There's just no way around it. Put one more stage in the audio path that doesn't belong there, and suddenly, the impedence and loading characteristics change, and the sound will be noticeably affected and you no longer have a valid comparison. I'm not going in to full details, but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at. ;) ;)

You don't say what mic you are using either.. a crap mic into the best pre in the world can make a baaaad sound!

Well its not a crap mic. I like the mic so that case is settled.

Moon Unit Sound.............. :c:

I still want to know what mic it is, crap or not.. why hide it? BTW, I never said it was a crap mic.. I said crap mics into good pres can make a bad sound.. sooo sensitive.. :D

I thought this was a mic pre comparison?.. It's hard to guess what pre it is without knowing what mic you are using. The sound we are hearing is a combination of the mic and the pre .. difficult to separate the two without knowing what is what.. :confused:

Is this a mic & pre "test", a micpre "test" or just a "test" ?

Well its not a crap mic. I like the mic so that case is settled.

Love it outlaws, you've made my week :) :) :)

C3000B.

Happy. I know it doesn't have the best reputation.

One pre is a Davisound TB10, the other is a stock 1680 pre.

It's hard to guess what pre it is

He didn't ask you to guess which pre it is. He asked which clip you prefered. There's a big difference in those two questions.

He didn't ask you to guess which pre it is. He asked which clip you prefered. There's a big difference in those two questions.

Thanks. People seem to get overly picky with this stuff. Most people don't have a "studio"...they have "studio" in the space not ocupied by the bed.

Love the box it's in, wish I could afford one :)

By the way, it beats me how any one could prefer clip 2 over clip one. There's a point in clip 2 where 2 notes are howling off each other like banshees. Now that's a bad pre which ever way you look at it.

Originally posted by Outlaws:
C3000B.

Happy. I know it doesn't have the best reputation.

One pre is a Davisound TB10, the other is a stock 1680 pre.

A lot of attitude on this thread.. mmmm kay.

So is #1 the Davisound and #2, of course the 1680? I am ignorant of that classification (1680) do you mean a Mackie 1604?

JD,
I liked #2 a little better, in spite of the "howeling", because it was a bit warmer and not as "tinney" sounding. The howeling was probably the mic and it wasn't as prevalent in the first sample becuse of lower pre amp resolution. I hate brittle and bright. The inexpierenced ear usually percives bright as better but I have learned to be cautious of it.. In the end it usually ends up as harsh and cold sounding..

BTW Outlaws, here's a picture of my "studio" I ran for over ten years. It is closed down now as of 1999, and I am retired, but I still have a "home studio" that occupies the family room (for a CR) and an ofice (for drums and iso) of my home..

Well, I didn't actually tell anyone yet which sample is which......

But the 1680 is a Roland.

... the 1680 is a Roland.

Thanks ... I wuzz a-scratchin' muh head on that one ... :D

JD,
I liked #2 a little better, in spite of the "howeling", because it was a bit warmer and not as "tinney" sounding. The howeling was probably the mic and it wasn't as prevalent in the first sample becuse of lower pre amp resolution. I hate brittle and bright. The inexpierenced ear usually percives bright as better but I have learned to be cautious of it.. In the end it usually ends up as harsh and cold sounding..

Well Kurt... In my opinion the'inexperienced ear' perceives warm as howling. Now you can take that as 'attitude' or the opinion of a 50 year old musician that's suffered the attentions of cloth eared 'Professional sound engineers' all of his career. Now I have the chance to buy the kit and I can finally have complete control over my music. And low and behold.. the self same engineers are trying to tell me, that I don't know what music sounds like, because I don't own the right gear. Here we go again, I don't think... Get with the beat man. It's only a matter of time before the charts are filled with hits recorded on solid state, cheap opamp crammed kit. It's not the gear it's the music. The music industry has never given a flying f**k for sound quality. Someone, somewhere got lucky and recorded Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones... and every 'out in the sticks Joe sound engineer' had to try and come up with the sound that was in the charts. you just don't get it do you. It was the Music not the gear. Are you really trying to tell me that people
wouldn't have listened to Billy Holliday or Hank Williams beacause the recording engineer had made the wrong choice of equipment....

Originally posted by J D Williams:

JD,
I liked #2 a little better, in spite of the "howeling", because it was a bit warmer and not as "tinney" sounding. The howeling was probably the mic and it wasn't as prevalent in the first sample becuse of lower pre amp resolution. I hate brittle and bright. The inexpierenced ear usually percives bright as better but I have learned to be cautious of it.. In the end it usually ends up as harsh and cold sounding..

Well Kurt... In my opinion the'inexperienced ear' perceives warm as howling. Now you can take that as 'attitude' or the opinion of a 50 year old musician that's suffered the attentions of cloth eared 'Professional sound engineers' all of his career. Now I have the chance to buy the kit and I can finally have complete control over my music. And low and behold.. the self same engineers are trying to tell me, that I don't know what music sounds like, because I don't own the right gear. Here we go again, I don't think... Get with the beat man. It's only a matter of time before the charts are filled with hits recorded on solid state, cheap opamp crammed kit. It's not the gear it's the music. The music industry has never given a flying f**k for sound quality. Someone, somewhere got lucky and recorded Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones... and every 'out in the sticks Joe sound engineer' had to try and come up with the sound that was in the charts. you just don't get it do you. It was the Music not the gear. Are you really trying to tell me that people
wouldn't have listened to Billy Holliday or Hank Williams beacause the recording engineer had made the wrong choice of equipment....

Sheesh! What phase is the moon in? LOL :roll:

Rock on JD! Use what ever gear you want.. it makes no difference to me. Buy your kit and use it.. Who’s stopping you? I'm not reaching through your computer and grabbing you by the collar, telling you to do what I say.. Please just state your opinions and instead of attacking mine, give your reasons for having them and leave it at that. Save this lifetime of resentment against recording engineers for someone else. I am not the one who fu*ked up your life.

Yes, I am saying in the old days, recordings were regularly passed on by record labels because the quality was sub standard.. the Beatles is a prime example.. they recorded those live tapes in Hamburg.. and George Martin re recorded them.. If what you say is true, why didn't EMI just put out those live tapes? Because they sounded bad.. I seriously doubt that cheap gear will ever repace stuff like Neves and APIs.. GR etc.. that stuff sounds very good and I am sure if you had it you would gladly use it. It’s not my fault good gear is expensive.

It seems you resent my opinion.. well, I am not going to change it just because yours or others feelings get hurt. If you don’t want someones opinion, don’t ask for validation. Because you are not going to hear that the gear doesn’t matter from any recording engineer that knows his stuff. It really is a no brainer. Talent first, yes ... but good gear counts too.

Well.......

The Davisound sells for $1250. That is 2 channel granted.....but.....

"Good gear counts too"

No it doesn't. Its all in the musicians because Kurt, you sir chose the Roland pre. The stock pre. #2. The one that came in the 1680. If you broke down everything you got with a 1680 when new....that pre would be worth about as much as an AudioBuddy.

I personally like the clarity of the Davisound. I dont think it sounds metalic...but I also don't think I would have dropped all that money on it again right away as the difference is... :) I would have probably done more to enhance my room in hindsight...but thats me. Live and learn I guess.

Davisound is Sample 1
Roland is Sample 2

Actually, no, Kurt did not choose the Roland. His exact words were, "I don't really care for either."

C'mon, folks. Why is everyone so bent on personal attacks here lately?

I LOVE affordable gear. But sheer common sense tells me that the better the gear, the more enjoyable the listening and recording experience, ESPECIALLY when recording true talent.

Let's keep the peace around here. We're all just expressing our own opinions. No need to get bent out of shape and take personal digs at others.

A lot of people miss the whole point of how you correctly compare two things and don't understand the big picture when do compare two things. If someone records two examples and one was done with a hunk of shit gear and the one done on expensive high quality gear, and the shit one gets picked over the expensive one, all that means is in that one specific example the shit one sounded better. Dozens of things in the process of recording that one example other than the gear can account for one being better than the other including the conversion of that specific sample into the shitty MP3 format. It does not mean the hunk of shit gear is or will always be better, or that the high quality expensive gear can not be misused or abused or that it will always the better choice.

Higher quality gear is like high quality tools used by a craftsman or like the fine hand made brushes made for a painter/artist. They each can can do wonders with anything put in their hands, but with the higher quality tools, they make masterpieces and can fully enjoy themselves in the process. The investment in higher quality tools will usually have less problems, be easier to use, be more reliable, will usually be more flexable, and will likely be the better choice far more often than not.

That is why when you compare things like done here in this thread it has very little meaning and almost zero value because the only way for it have any possible meaning or to come to any valid conclusion is if you know every single detail of how it was all done within the context of a very well known frame of reference. And that is not usually available and that certainly is not the case here.

Now you can go back to your half-ass rantings....

Now you can go back to your half-ass rantings....

Like yours? :p

I can assure you that the MP3's where very good representations of the original CD.

And the way people seem to want these comparisons done is with thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of equipment. But that is not the real world. That is the studio world. I don't think most people are as fortunate to have all the equipment that some of the current or ex-studio owners around these BBS's are.

Most people buy Behringer. Because most people cannot afford "vintage". Most people don't understand that the difference between prosumer and Maney is felt in Weldesigned studios will equally expensive boards and mics and monitors.

Some people are just living in a fantasy...which I would definatly like to obtain....but some people seem to have lost touch with is really out there....and its not perfect rooms with all the best of everything.

Hi
Thanks for taking the time to post a comparison.
What's the rest of the signal chain?
thanks Roly

A challenge for anyone in this context is a set-up for failure if ever there was one.Cheap vs.spendy,and really the Davisound is not THAT expensive,is in the way its been presented simply an apples vs.oranges.There are two mic-pres.They both perform the same function.They sound....uh...different.While the tester was trying to be very careful in reproducing the same amount of control with a guitar,something that is a bit subjective on its own,its still a flawed bit of a challenge and seems to be only here to make some point about someone elses opinions.Really, I could care less which sounded better and really it comes down to the user choosing which to use in a certain situation which would be unique to them.

Next time, try using a keyboard or something which has a precise and easily repeatable attack and decay.