Preamp Shootout: Great River, UA 2-610, MOTU 828mk3

[XYZ]

The purpose of this comparison was to evaluate what "character" pre-amps do to a signal, and to help me [or anyone that has similar pres] dial in settings more quickly. I thought of this when I saw that y'all do shootouts because I was surprised at how much these files sound the same, and yet how your favorite one will be obvious--when I played these files for some other people, even over low buck speakers, the differences were both subtle and huge at the same time. Let me know what you think!

I've got a lot of files on this one [two sets of 20], so I'm just uploading zip files. The first set is the MP3s, second set is the WAVs for the Royer portion [explained below in approach], and the third is the WAVs for the Rode portion.

Four Preamps were used:

1] Grace 101: used to capture the initial audio file; I used the Grace because it is the closest thing to a "wire with gain" that I have ever heard or ever heard of. It is super clean, super quiet, and has zero character. What comes out is just a louder version of what goes in. So this is not part of the shootout

2] MOTU 828mk3. With MOTUs new digital PLL clock and improved pre-amp gain, I used this as a comparison to what you could get as a low-cost, but capable pre-amp to compare to the much more expensive Great River and Universal Pre-amps. with a MOTY 8Pre, these pres cost ~$70 per channel as compared to the >$1k for the other two preamps. The concept here is that if they hold their own against this tube pre and class A discrete transformer pre, there is a whole lot of value there. The 828 pre is tested at a few different analog and digital gain settings to see if there is flexibility here without coloration.

3] Universal Audio 2-610. This is a two channel all tube preamp [real tube, not a solid state that has a tube to add "dirt" to the signal]. This pre is simple, but offers a lot of tidbits, including a tube high and low eq. What makes this pre interesting is the dual gain staging. This pre allows you to gain the signal up mostly with the first stage, or a little with the first stage and then more with the second stage. With lots of input gain, you get more tube "character" and more non-linearities, harmonics, "tube ****th," smoothness, etc. all that stuff real, low-feedback all tube amps give you. Turn down the gain, and turn up the level control, you get a cleaner, more chimey sound. So i've done a few runs with various gain staging. More were done with more "color" since I'm assuming if you are going to buy a tube pre, you are more likely to use it for more thickness.

4] Great River MP-2NV. The NV in the title says most of it, this is a slightly more practical implementation of a Neve pre-amp. This is a discrete class-A solid state pre-amp, with "iron" i.e., transformers that also impart a "color" of a different sort than the tube amp. This pre is popular with rock and roll since it imparts a "girth" to what you put through it, giving it more "toughness" for lack of a better word. You will hear it on the audio. It sounds the same as the other files, just "bigger" "Clearer" -- For me I find it makes tracks easier to mix since they tend to sand up and be counted. Listen and you will see what I mean. This is NOT a pure Neve 1073 copy, but rather an enhanced version; Neves have a reputation to add midrange "mush" for lack of a better word that you won't here on these tracks through the 2NV. This pre also has the dual gain staging like the UA 2-610, so some of the tracks will be gained lower for more of a clear, clean sound, and some will gained way up to show the character of this pre.


Approach:
I recorded a vocal track very dry, up very close with two mics into the Grace 101. The first was with a Royer 121 [Rear] which I think is a dynamite vocal mic [but I'm probably the only one!], it can take a lot of EQ without falling apart, and seems to be less sibilant than typical vocal mics. The second mic I used was a Rode NT1-A -- A large diaphragm condenser mic I seem to use a lot for vocals.

Track 00 is the result of the 121 recorded through the Grace pre.

Track 01-19 are various combinations of settings of the GR2NV, the 2-610, and the 828. Some with more gain and driven hard, some with less for a more pristine tone.

Track 20 is the result of the NT1-A recorded through the Grace Pre.

Track 21-39 are the same various combinations of settings used in the first batch [00-19] only with the Rode as the input signal vs the Royer.

Some of the runs were with different loading settings, these are not as relevant as if they were connected to a mic, since the mic loading was set when I recorded the two "pristine" fines with the Grace.

All input and output from Digital Performer was done using my Apogee clock, and the two test signals [121 and NT1-A] were output from My Rosetta 800 into the input of each pre-amp. For the 828 pres, I used the 828 A/Ds.

I have these all in a DP project file, so any DP users out there are welcome to it, if you like.

The main benefit to this will be to help people that may be thinking about spending big bucks on preamps. With these files you will be able to be much more confident in your purchase. If you own these pres, this can help you dial it in far more quickly, just copy the settings from the key file for the file you think has the color you are looking for.

[brandondrury]

MOTY 8Pre, these pres cost ~$70 per channel

Not exactly. The Motu MK3 has way more than just preamps in there. It's hard to gauge how much $$ actually went to the pres.

Alright I've just spent quite a bit of time listening. Maybe my perspective is different than other engineer types. I'm looking for the most exciting sounding clip. I'm looking for the particular clip that makes the music more exciting.

At one point I said "Damn! That's a dramatic difference for a preamp and then I saw you had used a 4.5dB shelf".

It would have been cool if you would have re-ran the signal through the Grace just to hear it's effect on the line-level signal so I really only consider this a comparison between the UA610, GR2NV, and 828mk3.

I hear differences, but they are very minute. I can't imagine being in a recording situation at home where these differences really leap out. The UA610 has a bit of lower midrange girth to it and depending how you pushed it a bit more happening in the upper midrange harmonics.

Assuming this was the final product and we only had an acapella vocal, I consider them all to be of equal production. I don't hear anything more exciting or pleasing to the ear than the others.

When I work hard to listen, I can hear less "smear" in the Great River. I could see how that wouldn't hurt if you stacked 40 tracks together.

I guess that's how I see it. The higher end preamps "wouldn't hurt". I'd take the Great Rivera, but we are talking about micro-level benefits in the whole grand picture.

Brandon

[XYZ]

Brandon,

Thanks for the input, good point, the actual portion of the MOTU pre is significantly less than 70 bucks because of the other stuff in there.

Hopefully, this will show people that getting one of these more expensive preamps won't "Make a huge difference" as is often reported in magazines and forums. I certainly would pick the GR over the MOTU for most tasks [and do], but is it a "Must have" that will "open up your sound" etc? Well people can use this to see for themselves. I'm with you, they are not huge differences.

It is also interesting that everyone that listens to this has a similar opinion to yours, even people who I would estimate have far far less of a "golden" trained ear as yours.

They have similar comments too--They all sound about the same, but I would definitely take "that" one.

Also, as you indicated, like pizza is to guys, they are all variations of good; any would work well.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by sending all these through the Grace again, would that not simply put a second imprint of the Grace fingerprint on them, even as small as it is?

For me the trouble is that I wind up liking the 610 for Bass and BG vocals, and the GR for Guitar, Lead vocals, and sometimes for a Mix; the Grace for acoustic. So comparing an isolated vocal is a bit stilted. However, I had the tracks, so I hope this helps, and will at least give people an idea of what to expect if they get one of these pres.

Maybe the next experiment can be to do guitars...

Regards,
XYZ

[brandondrury]

I certainly would pick the GR over the MOTU for most tasks [and do], but is it a "Must have" that will "open up your sound" etc? Well people can use this to see for themselves. I'm with you, they are not huge differences.

I'm slowly figuring this whole thing out in terms of how to explain it. I think I hit it over the head in Killer Home Recordings: Audio Engineering.

Basically, there is much that is supposed to be 100% natural where processing is basically shunned. I don't record this kind of music. I've got bands who want to sound like they are in outerspace. Bands want their drums slammed with compression, etc. So much processing is often done, for creative reasons, that the end result is often dramatically different than the real sound in the room.

Guys doing folk, jazz, or American won't get that but folks who love The Cure will.

The same goes for rock / metal drums. You aren't going to get Metallica Black Album drums by switching from Mackie to Neve. I always thought this was teh case. You get it by taking enormous sounding drums to begin with, scooping the shit out of the 400Hz, and layering samples under the snare and kick to brigten those up considerable. (That's how I'd do it anyway).

I really can't explain the big boy infatuation with the high end preamps. These guys must really be THAT bored that they start focusing on this kind of thing. Every record I make is a creative struggle where we are fighting to achieve our sonic vision. I don't feel like any one tool here stands out as making that creative vision any easier to achieve.

Brandon

[XYZ]

To further what you are saying, if you want pure pristine "just record what we are playing" like a lot of jazz players would want, you don't what the "flavor" that a saturated tube pre like the 610 will add or the Class A harmonics that a GR or Neve would generate--you would want a crystal clear, flat, linear phase wide band pre--in other words a wire with gain like the Graces or the Avalons [if you want to go for nearly perfect specs and nearly zero added noise].

I'm a rock and roller, and what I find these pres do for me is to make the mixing easier. I think when you get a GR "fingerprint" on a guitar, and a 610 "fingerprint" on a bass, it gives me an additional dimension for separation. For example, if I want 2 BG vocals to blend, I might use one pre-mic for both, and might use a separate pre-mic for the lead vocal--I have an easier time getting the BG vocals to glue together, and an easier time keeping the lead vocal separate, without having to crank it. NONE of this is "WOW what a huge difference!" that you hear on a lot of forums. I think if someone spends 2 or 4 grand on a pre-amp, they are COMPELLED to exaggerate the heck out of the "huge" difference.

I hope these files demonstrate, without any exaggeration, that the differences are subtle, not "huge."

And finally, as you say, if you are going to take that drum track, and put it through a bit-crusher, add distortion, compress the heck out of it, pump it through a non-linear phase EQ--did it matter that the preamp was perfect? Is there ANY way to hear the subtleties of the pre after this heavy processing?

[brandondrury]

Yeah, I'm totally with you!

It's not so much that I'm against the high end pres. I'm against the fact that a lot of broke dudes are made to felt they have to purchase them.

I can hear the "less sponginess" in the Great River preamps. I think this sponginess is something I have struggled with in both my Vintech 1272 and my Trident S20 when I use them on everything. Both of those preamps are of similar character (at least to me).

There is the notion that better preamps stack better, but as you mentioned, the 1073s are known for their 400Hz buildup when tracks stack. It seems to be a glaring contradiction that better preamps stack better but the most glorified preamp in rock music land doesn't stack so well. You could argue that you could just EQ out the 400Hz stuff, but a person could make the same argument for Presonus preamps or whatever.

Brandon

[azpatrick]

Thanks so much for taking the time to conduct the shootout. Our experience has been similar in our project studio i.e., the contribution of the preamp to the final product may not be as significant as mic/postition/skill of engineer etc. As a vocal coach I prefer to work on the source as much as possible and let the equipment/software refine and enhance rather than manufacture the sound. I recently spent several hours with an audio engineer comparing a presonus eureka to a universal audio la 610 using a martin guitar 000 28 with neuman mics (u87 and km 184) and my vocals. Not interested in a science experiment we just played with each until we got the subjective "best sound" possible to our ears. Without doubt the la 610 "won" but the difference was slight indeed. I had been toying with the idea of using the solo 610 for live but became convinced that it would be a waste of $$$ in a live setting. That said in our studio the go to channel for vocals is the u 87 and the la 610.