Budget Preamp Comparison

somniferum · Post by **somniferum** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:21 pm

8th note, thanks for taking the time to put all of this info together. It was very informative.

After listening to the samples, I have to say that the EH sounded the best to my ears. Many of the others were only slightly different from one another, but all were at least a slight improvement over the Mackie. (not to further rag on Mackie, it's just that the Mackie track had that typical Mackie "usable, but blah" sound).

Chris Radius · Post by **Chris Radius** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:30 pm

You know, I'm kinda with 8th note on this. To me, the 12AY7 and MPA were the two that stood out the most, and I didn't really know which one was better, but the MPA was a little bassier, but not tubby or muddy.

Nice to know that there are other good options out there. At the prices offered, I might just get both and put different tubes in for a multitude of flavors.

Thanks for putting up the comparison!

brokemusician · Post by **brokemusician** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:11 am

It sounds mastered, did you master these?

eeldip · Post by **eeldip** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:38 am

hur, i didnt like the MPA that much, sounded like it was relatively hyped on the highs, like 12k? 10k? i dunno. anyway, i wasnt so into that for acoustic guitar, too stringy for me. but i could see how that would be really cool on other sources.

the EH was pretty darned nice i'll say. i like whatever its doing. kinda big but mellow?? hypernatural? i would consider picking this guy.

the mackie really stood out too. it was certainly the least detailed, least 3d and least flat (frequency wise) sounding pre (fudgy low end?). but i was kinda diggin that for this track. i would seriously consider using the mackie for this application. personally, i dont like super detailed acoustic guitars- they sound fake to me.

the mp20 had a slightly hypey quality too? in the high? but i think i liked it a little more than the art. but yea, nice pre i think from this at least.

the 207 was pretty nice too, a little "smaller" sounding than some of the other pres, at least in comparison, it sounded the most flat and natural to me. detailed without being so hyped? i dunno, i actually liked it a lot.

8th_note · Post by **8th_note** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:11 am

At the prices offered, I might just get both and put different tubes in for a multitude of flavors.

We're on exactly the same wavelength, Chris. I went on a tube shopping spree and I have a box sitting here with JJ/Tesla, E.I., Mullard, and JAN Phillips tubes that I'm going to start experimenting with.

It sounds mastered, did you master these?

Nope. These are raw tracks. The only thing I did was tweak the levels slightly to get them as close to the same volume as I could. I recorded them pretty hot to begin with and they were already close in volume. I didn't raise or lower any track more than 2db. They were ripped to Mp3s at 160 kbits.

lyman · Post by **lyman** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:14 am

that would have been cool if you posted the links of the individual preamps without labeling what was what. i wonder how people would have responded differently....

i'm not saying that listeners were biased, i'm just saying that a blind taste test would have been intersting too.

hammertime · Post by **hammertime** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:16 pm

I felt the same way. I only listened to it for about 4 or 5 seconds, but it seemed to have a sort of clicking noise, as if the MPA was letting some fast transients in that the other pres weren't, maybe compression or cranking the tube's up would have dealt with the problem. The 12ay7 stood out in the strumming --I heard a nice upper midrange character that I didn't hear in the other pre's.

eeldip wrote:hur, i didnt like the MPA that much, sounded like it was relatively hyped on the highs, like 12k? 10k? i dunno. anyway, i wasnt so into that for acoustic guitar, too stringy for me. but i could see how that would be really cool on other sources.

the EH was pretty darned nice i'll say. i like whatever its doing. kinda big but mellow?? hypernatural? i would consider picking this guy.

the mackie really stood out too. it was certainly the least detailed, least 3d and least flat (frequency wise) sounding pre (fudgy low end?). but i was kinda diggin that for this track. i would seriously consider using the mackie for this application. personally, i dont like super detailed acoustic guitars- they sound fake to me.

the mp20 had a slightly hypey quality too? in the high? but i think i liked it a little more than the art. but yea, nice pre i think from this at least.

the 207 was pretty nice too, a little "smaller" sounding than some of the other pres, at least in comparison, it sounded the most flat and natural to me. detailed without being so hyped? i dunno, i actually liked it a lot.

brokemusician · Post by **brokemusician** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:15 am

I like the 12ay7 but man was it noisy, what kind of mic and pre were you using?

brokemusician · Post by **brokemusician** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:18 am

Uhhh could you please take back the second part of that question coffee's still brewing.

8th_note · Post by **8th_note** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:24 am

Uhhh could you please take back the second part of that question coffee's still brewing.

It was an MXL 2001 mic and a 25' Audio-Technica mic cable. You raise a good point about noise and that's something that I failed to mention in my review. The 12AY7 is noisier than the others (except the BlueTube), even with the MXL which is fairly high output. To record acoustic guitar I had to drive the pre hard to get a strong signal which generated some noise. This is not a pre I would use for a quiet vocal, for example. Because of its need to run into a balanced input I can't change the setting on my Delta card to -10 which would be a big help.

The weird thing is that there's been some other posts lately about this pre having an output that's too hot! Mine doesn't have enough gain - maybe I could trade for one of those. I don't get it.

brokemusician · Post by **brokemusician** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:36 am

I wonder if adding an input transformer would help out on noise? Great sounding pre but a little too noisy for my taste.

eeldip · Post by **eeldip** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:39 am

pfft. noise..

i would rather have a nice sounding noisy track than a crappy low noise one...

brokemusician · Post by **brokemusician** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:33 pm

But how about this, how about a great sounding mic pre with less noise wouldn't that be cool, a little more bang for your buck.

eeldip · Post by **eeldip** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:21 pm

jus saying i'd rather have a great noisy pre over a mediocre noise free pre if they were the same price.

however, thats a bit of false alternatives there, i think the 207 track above. for example. is pretty good and noise free, its not as impressive sounding as the 12whatever7 pre, but it doesnt sound bad at all. and i think channel for channel its quite a bit cheaper even. i could see a buncha tracks on that pre sounding very nice stacked up.

if you wanted the 207 track to sound nicer, you could use something even so lowly as that radio shack EQ thingy that everyone seems to love.

Mr. Dipity · Post by **Mr. Dipity** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:21 pm

eeldip wrote:if you wanted the 207 track to sound nicer, you could use something even so lowly as that radio shack EQ thingy that everyone seems to love.

I remember something about that, but can't seem to find it with the search function. Do you remember what it was called, or how I can find the thread?

Message Board

Budget Preamp Comparison

Who is online