Quantcast
Guess which pre - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Guess which pre
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Maniac
 
Sharkus's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Suitcase ➑️
I'm just listening on an iBook's speakers, but it almost sounds like #2 is a little clipped/distorted, which I think may have made it sound a little 'better' in a certain sense. Clearly #2 doesn't have the same headroom, and any eq or processing that you add will cause it to degrade very rapidly. It's interesting, in these little shootouts, the cheaper gear almost always wins, or at least performs well in terms of votes. Often, though, it's because of non-linearities that sound kind of hyped or excited. But those little distortions are something that can add up in a bad way on many tracks.

I agree that splitting the mic signal would be a little bit fairer, as would giving the Behrry enough headroom (if that's possible, maybe a 10 db pad before the preamp?) The Behrry will still sound worse, I bet, in fact, it may sound dramatically worse once the distortion is eliminated!



It's like a chinese condenser. They often sound so bright and clear at first, then you realize you're hearing some high freq distortion and it turns into nasty sibilance as soon as you compress or eq it.

You are right on. The Behr tracks are not friendly when you go to plug ins etc... If you don't nail the sound you want right up front with them, you don't have much room for tweaking. The Purple tracks are full spectrum crystal clear and take eq and compression very nice.
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Gear Maniac
 
tomeford's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I think people may have been going for the behringer because it seems to be slightly louder. Whenever you compare two sounds the louder one immediately seems better doesn't it?

But honestly.. did anyone actually listen to these through good monitors?
I just had a listen through my ATC's and the behringer just sounds like mud in comparrison.

would be interesting to try again switching the mics around...
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
moon_unit's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkus ➑️
The point? I had fun.

You either guessed right, wrong or didn't guess.
Alright, I'll take a stab. Sample 1 is the mic with the small scratch on the bottom, and Sample 2 is the mic with the small speck of dirt under the logo.

In all seriousness, though ... my honest to God guess here is that these two mics were positioned one just above the other, with the one on sample 2 being the bottom mic. That would put the second mic about an inch more parallel to the sound hole, and lower in relation to the singer's mouth ... hence a slightly chestier vocal tone and slightly fuller guitar tone. An inch is more than enough for that.

My second guess is that the two mics have a somewhat noticeable deviation from factory spec, resulting a somewhat rolled-off bottom end on clip number one.

Was I right?
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Gear Maniac
 
Sharkus's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Moon,

I had them side by side aiming slightly down. I was curious after you suggested switching the cables and redoing the test, so I did. The results were the same. One clean and clear, one fatter and muddy. I did realize how to get the signals even closer in volume by panning the tracks left and right and checking the meters. I agree a splitter and matched mics would be the way to go for a more perfect comparison, but oh well. It is what it is.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Gear Nut
 
Pexx's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
To me #1 comes as 'neutral' whereas #2 sounds too 'flattering' when it should actually be flat. So no surprises here really.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Gear Nut
 
weemies's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I just love it when a cheapo pre/converter/whatever "wins" one of these, there's always a bunch of people crying how flawed and meaningless the test is, but when the majority of the participants prefer the more expensive piece, then the test is just fine and proves how necessary it really is to have expensive gear.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by weemies ➑️
I just love it when a cheapo pre/converter/whatever "wins" one of these, there's always a bunch of people crying how flawed and meaningless the test is, but when the majority of the participants prefer the more expensive piece, then the test is just fine and proves how necessary it really is to have expensive gear.
i was just going to say the same thing. thumbsup


BUT... the caveat is, stacking 16 behr tracks will be a much different result from stacking 16 purple tracks. then you really will hear a difference.

but i agree, lots of gear snobbery around here.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Heartfelt's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
LOL

ya, keep thinking the Behringer will do as good a job as a purple.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I'm not surprised at all BUT the Purple Audio Biz has input and output gains And single or dual opamp settings so you can really make it sound like whatever you want. Your point is taken though. Inexpensive can sound pretty good.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkus ➑️
Annnnnnnnnd The Winner is. . .

pre1 = Purple
pre2 = Behringer

toxostoma rufum pretty much nailed it two threads back with "Good pre brings out the character of the mic".

I was surprised how many dug the behr better, but in the context of a one mic recording, a little smear doesn't matter, actually helps maybe.
For the record, I wouldn't trade the Purple for 1,000 Behringers. I don't think the tracks are even close in clarity. The purp is crystal clear and shows more flaws. When you start stacking tracks you can really appreciate it. Plus when you go to adjust eq, comp etc... the Purple track is a joy to work with, the Behringer has way less sweet spot.
Thanks for all who participated, as it takes some guts to chime in on these games. Also thanks GordZilla for the voice compliment.

I did get decent results using the pres on the Behringer for songwriting before I owned the 500 series stuff, but I never used it since.
They are night and day apart. It seems so close though.
I knew it, yay! I could tell that the 1st one sounded more expensive because there seemed to be less coloration.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
zacheus83's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
It also proves that experienced (and sometimes talented) individuals can make good recordings/mixes with inexpensive gear.

I've always said that the worlds biggest dummy wouldn't be able to make expensive gear sound good. It's good to know that cheaper gear is becoming better in quality and offering the tools that a beginner will use until he/she can afford to purchase the better sounding expensive stuff.

7 out of 10 amatures quit music and sell all of their equipment because they are told over and over that they cannot produce good music without spending a fortune. Think about that for a while before you dis a product based on it's price (and not based on it's sound).
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
moon_unit's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by weemies ➑️
I just love it when a cheapo pre/converter/whatever "wins" one of these, there's always a bunch of people crying how flawed and meaningless the test is, but when the majority of the participants prefer the more expensive piece, then the test is just fine and proves how necessary it really is to have expensive gear.
Who said anything about "winning," and since when did price have anything to do with it?

Hell, I'm on the side of the cheap stuff. I'm rooting for it. (You don't see me posting in the high end forum)

I just wish someone knew how to do a valid test. heh It's not that hard. (And no, you don't need splitters or a factory-matched pair of mics).
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zacheus83 ➑️
It also proves that experienced (and sometimes talented) individuals can make good recordings/mixes with inexpensive gear.

I've always said that the worlds biggest dummy wouldn't be able to make expensive gear sound good. It's good to know that cheaper gear is becoming better in quality and offering the tools that a beginner will use until he/she can afford to purchase the better sounding expensive stuff.

7 out of 10 amatures quit music and sell all of their equipment because they are told over and over that they cannot produce good music without spending a fortune. Think about that for a while before you dis a product based on it's price (and not based on it's sound).
Actually, I thought the lesson is:
a.) Get a better mic than a C1...at least a little better.
b.) Use a better preamp than a Bear Ringer...at least a little better.
This isn't a victory for cheaper gear by any means. It just shows that muddy recordings can sound warm. We all knew that, no? A guy singing and playing guitar sounds great all lo-fi and warm.

More often than not, you don't want that at all.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
zacheus83's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by toxostoma rufum ➑️
Actually, I thought the lesson is:
a.) Get a better mic than a C1...at least a little better.
b.) Use a better preamp than a Bear Ringer...at least a little better.
This isn't a victory for cheaper gear by any means. It just shows that muddy recordings can sound warm. We all knew that, no? A guy singing and playing guitar sounds great all lo-fi and warm.

More often than not, you don't want that at all.
But if you can get the recording to sound the way you want it to sound with cheaper gear (or close to it), then you will know how to use the expensive gear because you understand what you're going for.

Many people believe the only way to get good sound is with expensive gear. That line of thinking is flawed. The fact that ANYBODY thought mic pre #2 sounded better than #1 at ANY mic position or combination pre, cable, eq, compression or lack there of proves that with more expensive gear and no knowledge of how to use it, you can make a worse recording than the same recording with cheaper gear.

If my recording of a trash can sounds better than your pearl sessions kit, who cares if I recorded it through a Behringer?
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Maniac
 
Sharkus's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Moon_unit,
feel free to do a valid test if this one bugs you so bad.
I can't wait to hear it.
I'll definately participate.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Newcleardaze's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by moon_unit ➑️
If it's not scientific, then what's the point of even doing it?
I love these a/b comparisons because they're fun... it is a challenge to myself to pick out all of the subtle differences. Not because I'm buying anything (I'd never use a test like these to determine what I buy -- And I don't think that was ever the intent here), but because everything I listen to --CDs, Radio, TV, Movies-- I'm always paying attention to every difference my ears can pick out. These a/b tests give me personally something that is the same but different, a comparison with the smae sound twice, and I can compare my observations to others who are practiced at listening here. From what I've seen, the majority of those who partake in these are the same as I. Science never had anything to do with it from my point of view, and I'd guess with many other as well.

Thank you Sharkus for the fun!!!
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Gear Guru
I just knew that the 2nd preamp seemed to have exaggerated presence, while preamp 1 sounded more warm and natural sounding.
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
I liked pre2. Sounded fuller and natural. Weird I wouldnt have expected the beringer to be better.

listened on Sony MDR-7506s
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
jpupo74's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by moon_unit ➑️
If it's not scientific, then what's the point of even doing it?
Science will never be able to "tell you" if it sound good or not.
It'll tell you many other things though...

Cheers,
Pupo
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Gear Guru
Yeah I agree, it's not better, it's just different haha.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 74 views: 17563
Avatar for Matt Grondin
Matt Grondin 15th March 2006
replies: 60 views: 6528
Avatar for vernier
vernier 20th July 2006
replies: 15 views: 10539
Avatar for Circuitt
Circuitt 17th August 2014
replies: 68 views: 15411
Avatar for mixmuppet
mixmuppet 20th May 2015
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump