MILA-1

[NewYorkDave]

[quote author="ioaudio"]though it seems to be recorded a little closer.[/quote]

[quote author="louder"]seems you spoke closer to the mic.[/quote]

[quote author="Mr. Know-It-All Wisenheimer"]Also, see my comment about the speaker's distance from the mic--it was the same in both cases[/quote]

I'm gonna look like an idiot, but the truth must prevail: you were right, I was wrong. I mixed up the WAV files when I was joining the two samples together. I used the wrong sample for preamp #2; it was a sample I cut before it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to use a ruler to ensure the same distance each time. The difference in the level of early reflections being picked up by the mic should have tipped me off, but I didn't notice it right away. I'm sorry about the mixup.

Now, here is an uncompressed WAV file (1.7Meg) made from the clips I intended to use in the first place. And yes, with the distances truly being equal, preamp #2 does lose its bass advantage from proximity effect. (And, in fact, it seems slightly less rich in the low end, due to the difference in timbre of the speaker's voice. It's quite plain that he was speaking more loudly than in the preamp #1 sample). Truthfully, I'm kind of disappointed in how subtle the differences really are. Oh well... Stay tuned for the next shootout.

 

[Consul]

I got to take a few close listens to the wave file. I'm going to say that preamp #2 is the solid state one, leaving #1 as the MILA. I won't be surprised if I'm wrong, but I figure I have a 50/50 chance.

Pre #2 seemed a little brighter to me. Just a little.

 

[tommypiper]

Hi Dave, just discovered this thread. Very interesting, thanks so much.

About the WAV file samples, there is more background noise in #1, which makes it sound a bit more grainy. The lack of background noise in #2 makes it sound smoother to my ear, and possibly I'm tricked by that, but it sounds better, richer, more alive. However, there seems to be enough variation in the recordings to account for these impressions. I felt I could hear more room in #1, but that may be the background noise was higher at that moment, or that the gain was up a little higher. The voice was perhaps louder in #2 and the chest / human source resonances were a bit different, which could make it sound less bassy...

Great voice.

 

[NewYorkDave]

Because of all the variables (especially with untrained "talent"), I'm thinking the only really fair way to do this would be to split a single mic to the pres and track them both simultaneously. But splitting--whether done with a Y-cable or more elegantly with a special transformer--involves adding another layer of coloration, loading and loss issues.

Another way to do it, is to record the two pres at the same time using a pair of matched mics placed as close to each other as possible. But the only matched pair of mics I have, that don't require phantom power, are SM57s. And the 57 is not the best "voice" mic, IMHO.

At any rate, despite differences in vocal intonation and background noise level, the two clips in the WAV file were made under similar conditions and therefore the comparison is flawed but not completely useless.

EDIT: Tommy, the background noise is indeed about 3dB higher in clip #1. Here's the same WAV with the BG noise reduced by -3dB during pauses in clip #1. I just adjusted the amplitude during the pauses; I didn't use any fancy denoising algorithms which would alter the character of the sample.

1.7M WAV

 

[Consul]

Having listened to the second wave file, I stand by my original guesses.

You do have a great speaking voice, by the way.

 

[Kingston]

Having used the two-bottle preamp with this same shinybox ribbon mic (although I bought it as t-bone from thomann), I would be inclined to say preamp-2 has the same sound (very similar anyway). I know I'm not imagining the harmonic distortion in this, and I very much doubt any solid state preamp would be able to sound this way.

preamp-1 doesn't have the same subtle harmonic texture on the bass either - disregarding voice timbre changes - almost as if there's subtle compression on preamp-2, similar to the two-bottle I built. preamp-1 seems to behave in a far more linear and uninteresting way. The mic doesn't seem to "play" with preamp1: that pleasing "compressive" behaviour I observed with the two bottle as well just isn't there. It's odd how sensitive our ears are to tube harmonic distortion. It just sounds right.

I also noted the subtle high frequency shrill on preamp-1, like a lack of accuracy (must be the simple & cheap opamp design of a console?). That's not possible with at least the two-bottle so I stand by my guesses.

Man that shinybox ribbon with these NYD designs. lift that missing 10-15khz a few good dB with a great EQ: recording heaven.

If my guesses were wrong, it's back to ear training for me.

 

[clintrubber]

[quote author="Consul"]You do have a great speaking voice, by the way.[/quote]
I second that. And the MP3-trashing wasn't able to remove that :thumb:

D*mn thinks Dave, I was looking for praise for my pre-amp, not for my voice...

 

[Kingston]

I gave the shootout file to a sharp-eared mastering guy used to listening to subtle colorations. He came to very similar conclusions to what I posted above. preamp-2 is MILA. "well that was quite easy, got more?", says he.

(he also added that he wants this thing built for his studio as well. guess there's some tinkering for me to do at some point.)

 

[ioaudio]

[quote author="Kingston"]he also added that he wants this thing built for his studio as well. guess there's some tinkering for me to do at some point.[/quote]
why don´t you suggest him to buy a unit right from the designer? presuming dave agrees to build one for him...

 

[Kingston]

[quote author="ioaudio"][quote author="Kingston"]he also added that he wants this thing built for his studio as well. guess there's some tinkering for me to do at some point.[/quote]
why don´t you suggest him to buy a unit right from the designer? presuming dave agrees to build one for him...[/quote]

I did say to him I'm not quite the guy for the job just yet. But this is Finland and DIYers are scarce. He heard the two-bottle I did and seemed happy with the build quality (although I'm not, and I've got the Lab thread to prove it.. those pics..).

It's far from perfect but it's the sound that counts and it's not like I'll be charging him except for the parts. I'm quite the builder beginner still and need to learn more. far more.

I presume newyorkdave would disagree with this preference of distortion over clean sound, but everyone who has heard this unit has especially liked the tube sound at high gain, when the harmonic distortion is most audible. Ribbons are especially subjectible to this obviously.

I wonder what would be a good place to start if I was to start looking at designs similar to these, where the right kind of harmonic distortion could be emphasised further. Just like it sounds when sinatra and co. sing, and the tubes seem to be working hard, and kind of failing just the right way. Collins 6q1a was suggested, but I'm such a fan of NYD designs that I'd like to look further in this direction.

 

[tommypiper]

Yeah, I still stand by my first impressions. The #2 sample sounds mo' betta.

However, I'm still distracted by the BG noise differences. I feel the BG noise could be coloring the voice in the recording. Another thing about the performances, the "talent" sounds more excited, or hurried in #2. (I'm thinking, "does this mean he's pumped cause this is the one, or he's in a hurry and wants to get this one over with?") :grin: Reverse social engineering...

Going on these samples #2 is my pick. Dave, if you want to try the two SM57s side by side I think it could be useful. Or any two same model mics. They don't HAVE to match perfectly. Because you can then swap the mics, and run the test a second time. So we'd have a "double-blind" type situation which should essentially even out the variables in two takes.

 

[skipwave]

The difference is subtle, but both sound so much better without the MP3 compression. I agree that preamp2 has more life, character, air, etc. Just sounds more lively. Very nice, indeed.

This is really inspiring, I think this just got bumped up a few positions on my project list, which is so long at this point I use it as a window shade. :green:

 

[NewYorkDave]

Yes, preamp #2 is MILA. I'm glad that most of you seem to like it, despite its Beyer input transformer :razz:. I'd have been bummed out if the responses had been along the lines of "Oh man, #1 is much better, #2 sucks ass..." But that's the chance one takes with these blind shootouts. Better that, than to "lead the witness" and get a biased response.

In all fairness, preamp #1 is a bog-standard transformerless solid-state design that would cost about $10 in parts and a couple hours of time to build, so you can all decide for yourselves if the incremental, subjective "improvement" (which you may or may not hear in a full mix) is worth the extra time and expense of the tube job. I have a feeling the difference will be more audible with a less forgiving mic like a 57, but we'll know for sure soon enough.

Tommy, the voice talent was definitely in a hurry to get the job finished and collect his meager salary of a cigarette and a cold beer. But I can understand how hurried might come across as pumped :wink:

Kingston, the prototype of the One-Bottle just loves the Shinybox ribbon, too. For something with a less linear/more obviously "tubey" sound, why not try a One-Bottle with the feedback loop removed? You can replace the first stage plate resistor with 100K, the .022uF/1M interstage coupling with 1uF and a 100K log pot, and--if you like--bypass the cathode of the first stage with a cap for more gain/less hum (when using AC heaters).

 

[Kingston]

Thanks for the tip. I seem have most of the parts for it already, which is a great bonus. Using the (approximately) 1:13 ratio OEP for the input should give me some more gain as well. The two-bottle inputs are working at a less optimal 1:8 ratio now.

This'll be a great afternoon project. Time to put my newly learned bus grounding tricks to good use as well. :wink:

 

[Consul]

Yeah, I figured I had it wrong. I can blame my cheap headphones, though. :green:

 

[analag]

[quote author="NewYorkDave"] Maybe I should only post SPICE simulations from now on; they seem to generate more interest around here, and it's certainly less work than drilling and soldering. :razz:[/quote]

A little more charisma helps too, buddy.

analag

 

[chrissugar]

[quote author="NewYorkDave"]Yes, preamp #2 is MILA. I'm glad that most of you seem to like it, despite its Beyer input transformer[/quote]

I was the first with the right answer, so should I send you my address to send me the prize? A preamp? You say a stereo pair? With spare tubes? Oh, thank you. :grin:

chrissugar

 

[solder_city]

analg, you like a high school in summer. no class.

but this aint the place to talk about your persecution complex. we can start a new thread for that.

now back to business. comparing side by side i can tell that sample 2 is the tube preamp, but sample 1 really doesnt sound bad to me at all. will you tell us what console this is?

 

[Clayphish]

Nice blind test NYD.

I'd say that not only does your MILA have more grit in the higher range (8 to 11khz roughly) as others are saying, it also seems a bit cleaner and focused in the lower mids. I also can hear a slight bump in the mids which makes it a bit more present (sort of like what I've heard from the McCurdy AU300, but not quite as much).

I think if I happened to own your pre I'd use use it extensively because by the sound of it, it would make blending tracks very easy.

Good job

 

[ciminosound]

I like analag. Styles of communication aren't translated well typing on a computer. Attitudes and rational don't always come across all that well either.

NYD more charisma? That doesn't always come across either. All his old school NYC stuff shows he's got style. He's a busy guy, we're lucky he's here at all!

"Can't we all just get along?"

:sam:

Peace (sorry to borrow your tag Al.)