As stated in my signature I own a Focusrite Saffire pro 40, I also have a 2 channel tube pre (Art TPS II) that I have liked for many things like vocals, guitars, and getting a little more grit from a bass guitar.  I have to run a cable from it's output to a 1/4" input on my focusrite interface to get it in my computer.  Recently I bought a Behringer ADA 8000 which I connected via Light pipe to get me 8 more in's so I now have a total of 16 Analog ins that I can use simultaneously.  I didn't expect much from the pre's based on the price of the unit but It was a cheap way to expand my system in a pinch.

  So now, I have 8 ch on the saffire (2 of which I use to host the mic pre's on the TPS II), and 8 more on the ADA.  Then I thought... How nice would it be to be able to permanently run cables from my board into these devices above and then I could just plug mic's into the board as needed and get the benefit of EQ etc. on the way in?!  My board is a Yamaha MG16 FX.  

  I decided to do a shoot out (sound files will be uploaded here shortly) to see how my different pre amps /combinations compared.  I put an SM57 on my 4x12 guitar cab, set it up and left it in the same place for my entire test with out changing the amp or guitar in any way.  I tried to record the same segment of an old song I wrote years ago  & at as close to the same input level as I could and figured I'd see what I got...



1) Mic to Yamaha (with EQ set straight up the middle) board, to the saffire pro

2) Mic to yamaha board (same neutral EQ), to my TPS (tube pre), then into the saffire pro

3) Mic to the TPS, then the Saffire pro (this is the way I have recorded most of my guitars)

4) Mic straight into the Saffire pro


5) Mic to my Behringer ADA 8000


I then sat down to see what I hear back....
I would first like to say that I later played around and the fact is I was able to make the all sound pretty good with some EQ and compression, any of them would be usable, none of them had a bad noise floor and Most of the differences seemed to be in the extreme frequencies (which I roll off on guitars anyway).

Option #1) I found the low end flabby, indistinct  and there seemed to be a weird warble or Phasey kinda thing going on.  It reminded me of the sound of recording to the old 4 or 8 track cassette recorders.

Option #2) Low end seemed a little tighter, and oddly the Phase/warble thing was gone, It was much brighter in the high mids & highs.  

Option #3) Low end is now and tightened up a bunch, though the highs are annoying to me and the mid's almost seem scooped.  Usable with EQ, but rough without it.

Option #4) This one seemed to lack interest to me...  Low end is there but with less punch, Mid's are OK.  The highs are less bright than option #3 which was good but for some reason this just did nothing for me...  Sounds dull, flat, digital...

Option #5) As I said above... I didn't expect much here, and at first glance/listen it seemed to be a hair bright.  But the lows IMO had this nice rounded yet tight chunk to it, the mids seemed nice and balanced without the scooped sound, and yes the highs are a bit bright but as I said, when I mix I generally roll that out a bit anyway. & as soon as rolled the highs back a hair with a LPF I really liked this one compared to the others.  

I was surprised that After nearly an hour of going back and forth between them all, I kept coming back to the last one...  The cheapest mic's pre's with the most lack luster reviews were actually winning my vote.  I didn't see that coming.

I then sat with each one solo'd and played with EQ to see if I could get each one where I wanted it.  I started on all with a HPF at around 80Hz and a LPF in around 16000Hz
1) Was the loser of them all through & through.  The fludder was annoying even after I got the lows under control with an 18 db per octave Q on the HPF.  
2) Was usable though I don't think the board (at least in a neutral setting) did anything for the signal other than degrade it a bit.
3) Required a heavy LPF to tame the highs 
4) Required boost in the lows to compare to #5, I cut out a notch around 250 hz to make it sound less hollow, and curbed the highs.  It is ok I suppose.
5) I had to roll the highs back a bit more and make it a slope from the mids rolling off into the highs & used the above parameters on the HPF but otherwise I though it sounded pretty solid.

I will upload samples this evening, Would you guys like them on something like soundclick?  Or would you rather I put them in a public folder on Dropbox so you can download them?

I am curious to hear your thoughts here too.  Maybe I am nuts?! 

(* as stated in post #7, sound files added.    http://www.soundclick.com...1690&content=music )
 

I'd like to hear them - either way, soundclick or dropbox.

I was using a Firestudio 26x26 for some time, and I remember wanting to try the Behringer ADA8000 against an Octane and a couple others with the ADAT connections, the first unit I could find locally was a Digimax FS, being somewhat familiar with Presonus' preamps I went with that, but I wish I'd had a chance to hear an ADA8000, I suspect it would have been just fine.

Thanks Steve, When this hadn't received even a single reply I figured well.... If nobody is even interested why bother converting and uploading all those files? So I didn't bother. I will get them up for you here soon. I have a long work day today and 2 more drummers to audition to find the replacement for my band tonight, but I will try to get to that ASAP.

FWIW, The ADA-8000 is a great piece of gear (for the cost).
It may well be the best piece Behringer has ever made.
I had/used one for a long while... when I needed more than 8 inputs.

Noise-floor is decent (~-104dB)... and the subjective sound of the converters is pretty good.

I think you've done a great public service here, Chuck, and I hope every noob with cash burning a hole in his pocket has a chance to see your post before calling up Musician's Friend.

I've not done any testing as thorough and systematic as yours, but my experience would seem to line up with your own, namely that the purest, most consistent tone has been achieved going straight into my interface. 

I've heard nothing but good things about the ADA8000. A shame it's tarnished by the Behringer nameplate, but despite the company's reputation they do offer some good affordable stuff. 

As far as built-in versus outboard mic preamps, if you were to examine the schematics you'd find that the built-in pres are nearly identical to any inexpensive standalone preamp or mixer. By using the interface's own amplification you're shortening the signal path and reducing overall cable length, which is usually a good thing.

did behringer not steal that design?

Chuck,

I think a lot of people were interested, but there wasn't much to add.  I don't have any of the equipment you tested.  I know I like higher-end pres (or at least medium-end pres), think they sound better but understand the placebo effect.  But mainly I'm too lazy to do an actual shoot out, tho I take stuff to a real studio to see how it performs in a great room and against some good stuff - ssl, api, UAD hardware.

@

I set up a separate soundclick account for this shoot out (though I can't get them in the right order for some reason) they are numbered as above. Your feed back and thoughts are appreciated! http://www.soundclick.com...=1291690&content=music

Hi Chuck, well you know me....I gotta give you an opinion here. :)

I stopped buying into the whole pre thing years ago when I did my own tests vs. tests that were done in a studio that had all the right stuff. The results were so minimal that I just couldn't see where spending loads of cash on good pre's made THAT much of a difference. At the end of the day, it's like you say....you can eq anything to sound right and eq anything to sound like something else within reason.

But here's the key to it all which AT has a point. Let's say for example, a really good pre makes a 3% difference in sound. That doesn't seem like much...and by listening to something by itself like say a guitar tone, it's not worth it to go out and buy something pricey.

However, the key to this is...when you use these pricier pre's on several instruments, that 3 % starts to grow. When you use really good cables as opposed to cheaper grade cables....on one instrument, there may be a 2 % difference. Add that in with several, the % grows. With each really good thnig you add to the chain, that % is going to ramp up and mean something totally different when you take the entire mix into account. What may have started as a 3% difference on one instrument now turns into a 35% difference on all instruments, see my point?

Granted, I'd NEVER try to sell someone on buying a fancy pre unless it was something that had a characteristic that was a necessity. Like...some pre's....are famous for a certain sound and that certain sound comes from when you drive them just right. There is no replacement for a pre that reacts like that. Sometimes you can't even cop the sound it will give you with eq. You can come close, you can dirty things up...but some of them just have a sound that can't quite be duplicated and they DO have their place.

That said, bitflipper and I share the same thoughts on this. I like either the sounds of my instruments going direct to my interface with a very light compressor for conditioning, or I send them through my console and then to the interface. They both work about the same, but there's a slightly different "presence" about the sound when going direct to the interface. Then there's a slightly different presence when going through one of my consoles. When I say "presence" I don't mean like the presence/treble you get from an amp....I'm talking sound presence. The two are just sort of different yet do the same thing really.

I definitely don't think you're crazy though. I personally like pre's that don't color the sound. Get the signals to the right levels, and go without coloration. I'll worry about the coloration once I start mixing. But other people feel differently about that...and that's ok too. Whatever works.

In listening to your examples, to my ears, 2 sounded a bit harsh and trebly, 2 sounded too warm and sort of...lifeless in the high frequency ranges. The two that sounded trebly sounded nearly the same. If I had to pick one, the ADA wins for me. One thing they all have in common though...too much bass "whoomf". You can just hear the blanket of lows all over the place on my end. You definitely need some good mids to warm things up, high pass that low end "whoomf" and low pass the abrasiveness.

Just some friendly advice. I know you were just testing and messing around...but just for your head...if this were me doing the engineering here, I'd work on the settings in the amp a little more to get things as close as possible then I'd experiment with some different mic placements before I'd attempt to record this sound. The lows are the biggest offender followed by the harsh highs and lack of mids. So work the amp a bit, then see how you fair with some mic placements and you should be in good shape no matter WHAT pre you decide to use. :)

-Danny

Hey there Danny, When burning these down I contemplated leaving a high pass filter on all of them to cut out the lows but I then decided for the sake of the "test" I would let everyone hear exactly what the mic picked up for each pass. When mixing, I do use a HPF & roll off some highs on every guitar track, That's just kinda standard treatment. It's funny you mention it though... About a week ago I said to my other guitarist, "Ya know man, Every live sound guy in these clubs just smacks a 57' of center, straight on and rolls with it. We need to spend a couple of hours working with that mic placement and dial our amps in to sound good at the mic rather than what sounds good 10' out so that our sound is as good as can be at in the front of house system when we play live." I am glad to see we both liked the same tone from these 5 in the test. Thanks for chiming in!