➡️ Let me show you the comparison between an 1972 German mixing desk and the Focusrite Clarett ➡️ Watch part one about the restoration: • Vintage Mixing Console... ➡️ New video every month
That desk sounds lovely but I'm rather impressed by the Clarett. I admit was expecting a bigger difference. As you mentioned, when driving the circuit a little more for the second track, it becomes really obvious that the desk is more pleasing but the Focusrite just sound different, not worst. Thanks for putting that video together, it was really well done and interesting.
so glad 2 was the analogue. to me it sounded so much more open and pleasing. usually with these shootouts I don't really hear any difference but to me this one was pretty clear. congrats mate!
The jump in quality is obvious, but both recordings are beautiful. I have great gear in my studio that I sometimes don't want to bring to remote sessions. Having a Clarett or Apollo x4 ready for the road always gives me great results in those situations. I think the time has come where every other factor has become more important. great time to be doing this. Nice playing and sweet video. Grüße!
Really, the only thing worth pointing out would be that young lady's delightful voice. The difference between the desks was so minimal as to be irrelevant.
I'd say the second was the desk, the roll off in the highs and low mid boost are pretty characteristic of older equipment, the Clarett (unsurprisingly given its name) was the sound with more high frequency information. In my opinion I'd rather work with the Clarett regularly, It's much easier to get this kind of sound if I do want it, than to remove this kind of sound if I don't want it. This amount of low mid boost would be completely inappropriate on something like a modern electronic song in my opinion, I'd have to spend a long time controlling it with eq cuts, but the desk would also save me the same amount of eq boosting on other tracks, so it's difficult to say one is 'higher quality' than the other but easy to say I'd consider one more versatile and portable than the other.
With preamp 2 we get more harmonics, and some extra excitement un the top and bottom end. It also has a little bit more natural compression on it as a result of the vintage discrete circuity
Both great results. I hear more depth and nice open airy frequencies from the console. I believe the clarett has an "air" feature if im not mistaken. I wonder how that comparison would be. However great video!
Nice one. Did like the 2nd preamp a lot better. I think it becomes especially noticable with the softer material. Listening on M1 Macbook Speaker btw as i think these are good reference speakers in general.
Sehr geil! Ich hätte es andersherum gewettet weil ich viel mehr Air und clarity gehört habe und das ehr Focusrite zuschreibe. But u proved me wrong ;) Schönes Stück hast Du da ergattert :)
I think the desk sounds better, if you listen on a decent monitoring environment you can hear and even feel a huge difference, I knew straight away pre amp 2 was the desk. In comparison the clarett sounds like a demo and the desk like a pro recording, also the desk recording was muuuuch more enjoyable to listen to.
I think I slightly preferred pre 2. I felt like it had a bit more depth to it, which to my ear means that the low mids were clearer and better defined. Listening without focusing on the nuances though, the differences are fairly negligable
When you turn on the AIR function on the clarrett you get the same result. The top end will lift and you get more life! I bought that Clarrett+8 pre plus the octapre. I was sceptical because i´m coming from RME and ProTools HDX hardware and tons of finest outboard hardware, but what i heared was unbelieveable. The Clarett Stuff sounds creamy and super analog. I record tons of drums and there you can really say if a pre amp can handle it or not. And sure there is no compression like an analogue desk, but who cares, if the signals are clean? You can compress afterwards, if you klike. And to be honest; i like the Focusrite more then my RME, not kidding. Best R.R.
Pre 2, more punch in the midrange quite noticeably, but I'm sure you can get there or so close it will be mundane to even mention the difference with a little tweaking in the mix. That being said, that's why outboard gear and desks still make sense from a production standpoint : time gained and ease of achieving "close to final" results at the recording stage. Choose your colors and paint. :)
I knew that Preamp 2 is the console just from the Macbook speakers - much more lively, more air, more presence. Doesn't mean Clarett sounds bad though. Can't wait to hearing on monitors, nice job and the console is just beautiful! :)
Seems preamp 2 has a higher impedance but otherwise both work, Preamp 1 softens the transients like a most low 1 kilo-ohm and lower mic preamps will do giving you a blanket over the mic impression, but both sound clean enough to use. I prefer higher impedance mic preamps because they will have a faster slew rate and better transient attack response but they do sometimes lack sustain to the audio. Cheers!
I don't know what these people are talking about. Before it came to the acoustic guitar stuff, I can guarantee that hardly anyone would be able to tell when you were switching pres (without the visual cue indicating it). Great playing!
to my ears there was no comparison. the desk was easily the winner. far more open and three dimensional top end, the mids were more defined and thicker and I agree that everything sounded more "forward"...the Clarett was shockingly plastic-ey sounding which really surprised me because I'm a focusrite fan! Really nice desk you have there!
Definately pre 2. There is more punch in the mix overall and also more pleasing harmonic distortion going on in the upper mids. Seems like the slewrate is different between the to preamps. Clarett sounds somewhat more compressed…
Even on MacBook 2018 speakers (which are surprisingly good for such a slim computer), the desk sounds distinctly more upfront and fresh. Clarett is muffled in comparison. Not sure if I'd prefer that for anything.
I think the answer is to use both I think it's easy to get too much low end buildup when every track has that kind of low end heft but for kick and bass I prefer 2
I prefer the second preamp, it sounds just right for the style of music (more presence on the mids/highs, "tamed" transients...maybe "fuller"). The first one also is good too, but the transients ask for some compression in order to sound "right" (in my opinion, the way the transients behave in relation to the body of the sound is the big giveaway to recognise the preamp type). It's not a day and night difference, but it is still noticeable (I listened with my m1 macbook air speakers and picked correctly the pre models - I'm not an audio professional, but I'm a very passionated hobbyist with some gear, including a Clarett+ Octopre...). Given the choice, I'd record with the second preamp because I'd want that sound for songs like those in the video, so it makes sense to get it from the start, rather than "fixing it in the mix" (maybe "fixing" is an hyperbole, but I'd have to put some additional work to get a tone very close to what the second preamp provides "out of the box"); but it's something I'd consider as an "artistic/production" choice (I'd still be completely happy with a recording made with the first preamp; my preference towards the second preamp is a bias caused by the sound of all the music I listened to in my life so far; it's not a choice driven by any technical requirement).
My opinion. In the first example, with you singing, the clarett sounded best on the vocals, since it gave you a bit more clarity that was needed. In the second example, with the girl singing, the desk sounded the best. It was pretty easy to hear the difference in the vocals, and I guessed right. But the other instruments where waaay harder to hear the difference with. I think I heard more clarity in the bass with the Clarett, but I'm not as shure as in the vocals.
Incredibly, preamp 2 seems to compress a little bit. It's really evident on the Teenage Dirtbag vocal.. Sounds a bit more already-mixed. I certainly expected to be able to tell a difference, but that wasn't the effect I expected! Edit: commented before watching the end of the video. Well , that tells you just how noticeable it is!
The Pult is more alive around 8k, but the clarett has a better definition in the low midrange, however the Pult is pristine in the frequencies only perceivable by dogs and whales. I like the slight bump at 5678,876888 Hz of the clarett, however, the pult cuts everything at 0.000000001 Hz and it is disturbing but pleasing. I listened to this videos thru 126 pairs of speakers and 167 pairs of headphones and noticed that it sounds drastically different regarding the brand of my pair of jeans, and whether I wear sunglasses or not. At the end of the day, I like them both and respect the efforts put into making such a video.
Seems you are more obsessed than all the other audio freaks. ;) I get your point and I agree that equipment is not crucial for doing good music. There are more important parameters like arrangement, mic placement, performance….but playing around with gear makes a lot of fun and sometimes even effects your performance. :) Thanks for your comment!
clarett definitely brighter and i have to say sounds better to my ear with vocals and acoustic guitar, but almost everything else (especially bass & snare) is nicer on your desk. i think for instruments that rely on clarity and a wide transient/sustain frequency speration I'd go with Clarett (as the name implies) but accompaniment and body really benefit from the warmer, slightly darker sound of the vintage desk. that snare drum sounded incredible
Vintage Desk has got that mojo... Focusrite is super clean though, it makes her voice "shine"... Man that's a tough one... maybe both at the same time, LOL
Interestingly, in the isolated tracks of song 1, I preferred drums and basson pre amp 2, but everything else on one. Overall though, 2 was more pleasing, but only just. Second one was a much clearer demonstration and pre amp 2 won hands down. So, if you're recording bands and loud sources, the difference is close to negligible, which is interesting as I'm sure the price difference is pretty significant. I use clarett 8pre and octopre to track rock bands, and love them. Very impressed how they stand up to a vintage console!
Yeah, as a lot of people said in the comments, there is no winner or looser. Most of us prefer the desk because of saturation and excitement but as you said, there are a lot of situations where the Clarett will do a better job. Like clean and fast transients. ;) So I still love my Clarett and will use them next to my more expensive pres.
Don't get me wrong... my aim is to add a bunch of pres like 1073 style things that will drive hard and give a more vintage sound, BUT when I had to build my studio from the ground up, literally making the whole building from scratch, then I had to be clever with how I kitted out the inside. And when you can get 16 channels of clarett pre amps for under £1k, that's a pretty huge bang for your buck, and also pretty unbeatable from all the research I did. The point seemed to be you had to spend about 10x as much to get a noticeable difference, and even then, it wasn't exactly earth shattering, and not like you can't track amazing music on clarett pres. Great video!
@@jamielailey4594 Yeah, I went on this same odyssey during Covid. I came to that same conclusion: to get the sound I "wanted" from a preamp would cost 5-6x what I could afford. So, I decided to roll with the best thing I could afford (PreSonus 192) and rely on mic choice and placement alter the sound capture parameters. It's honestly paid dividends in the quality of my recordings and it's also cut down the amount of post-processing I have to do.
@@phillipemery572 yeah, I think converters and pre amps are so good now, a lot of plug ins are trying to offer that kind of warmth and saturation after the fact, but the thing is, all these setups are expandable, so we can build our own 'console' over time! Good luck!
From the get-go hearing the Preamp 1 alone and how boomy was the Bass i already considered it could be the Clarett( not because the Clarett is worst than other Audio interfaces in it's range). BTW the verdict was clear when i heard the Preamp 2 part of the video and it was more clear when I heard the differences in details in the second part, expecially on the voice. Don't get me wrong, the Clarett in comparison still sounds really great!
Yeah -- I've spent enough time with Focusrite preamps that I knew pretty much from the drop which was which. As long as you allow for those preamps to be what they are, you can still capture some great sounds with them. And they're probably a few bucks cheaper, to boot...
Definitely the KSG, and that was before knowing which was which. It sounded much more 3 dimensional. Usually I hardly hear differences in these types of videos, but here it was clear. Great comparison!
Guessed right, I would be embarrassed if not. The Pult sounds absolutely stunning. Just makes the notes dance a little bit more. With that being said, the Clarett is also great. A more pure sound as the Clarett leaves more space for modifying the sound later down the line tho, I bet you can get very close with plugins.
@@MarcHerwig 100%. I love my hardware as well. Something about it you won't get in such a pleasing way digitally. Close, yeah, plugins are great and good value, but not completely there. :)
Preamp 2 sounded much more natural and musical even though it was compressed/saturated. Preamp1 was great sounding too but the preamp2 just had more midrange punch and openness to it which I personally feel translates really well into the real world.
The clarett is more "mid-tier" than "low grade". Scarlett is their most affordable range. Interestingly, the supplier for focusrites ad/da chips had a fire in their factory, forcing focusrite to find a new supplier. That new supplier was able to provide more headroom/lower distortion across the board on the converters, making the clarett a pretty clean machine. Perhaps not mastering grade, but it is certainly a contender in its price bracket
Felt like the volume matching wasn't perfect, the console sounded a tad louder all the time. Maybe it's the compression that made the console's RMS louder?
The peak levels are exactly the same. But you‘re right, because of saturation and harmonics the pult sounds overall a bit more present. But to be honest: That’s what we want most of the time. 😉
Preamp 1 sounds better to me. smoother with a nice presence. Preamp 2 also sounds great but when the high frequencies get loud you can hear them getting little over whelming, some kind of build up in the high mids going on. Maybe just a slight EQ might favour the preamp 2 though. both sound great. Clarett preamps are pretty top end especially for the money.
To my ears the biggest differences are in the drums (more transient control, low mid saturation and perceived loudness) and the female vocals (some really nice texture in the high mids to highs, maybe due to saturation and harmonics?*). But while I picked the preamp number 2 in blind test, it was interesting, that the benefits where not "cumulative" - meaning, they sounded more obvious to me on single sources, than in the whole mix. All that being said: You've got a lovely piece of gear there - but this test proves all the guys wrong, who claim to need "better preamps" to record some damn fine sounding music. Thanks, for your work! *EDIT: Might also be the interaction between your pres and the amazing vintage Gefell? Do you know about differences in the impedance?
No I bought them on eBay. They are AFL and very easy to install - they are coming with the driver PCB you only need to power them up and connect one cable to your output jack. If you want to switch them to PFL it get‘s a little more tricky.
The truth for me whenever I see comparisons of this type there is never much difference since the person recording is the same and usually gets the same out of both things. I liked the pre 2 better but the difference is nowhere near the difference in money. I think if you wanted to get the sound of the pre 2 with the pre 1 it would be perfectly laudable, we would all like to have lots of gear but the reality is they are just tools. Thanks for reminding me not to spend a lot of money on equipment :)
Great point! You can do incredible things with inexpensive gear these days. Of cause better equipment will help getting better results, but before investing in these things you have to invest in your musical skills, your mixing knowledge, your acoustics…. Since this is a DIY project (I got this desk really cheap and done a lot of mods) it wasn’t that expensive for me. So welcome in the DIY world. Great Equipment and a lot of fun for a makeable price. ;)
I feel Pre amp 1 is a bit more sparkly, a much more pronounced Highend. But i preferred Preamp 2 on the second vocal. Overall not a huge difference for me!
Yep my thoughts exactly! Clarett on the voice had less bottom end fullness and helped vocal to stand out in the mix. For the band the board worked really well.
Many reviews says "preonus 96 sound the same as Scarlett" Many other reviews say "they cant hear dufference between Scarlett and clarett " And you say "clarett and vintage desk have ni différence ". So in conclusion"we cant hear dufference between presonus 96 and vintege desk"
I was really think that I was like the Clarett.... but I sopos I am the old fashion guy,... number 2 was that I was like.... but totally understandable.... not really un expected...
Pre 2 is a bit brighter. Vocals are better with pre 1 and I prefer drums with pre 2. But overall both preamps sound great. Its a matter of taste and song style...
I think I would have a much better time mixing with Preamp 2, as Preamp 1 seems to have this "modern harsh high end" that we all work in the mix theses days, I could be off but Its what come in mind, It seems like a typical modern interface preamp I writed that before knowing the results but this what comes in mind.
Definitely. That’s one reason why I love to work with outboard - I get faster results! If I work only in the box I always have the feeling that I need more plugins to control the harshness or get the “glue“…maybe it’s all about experience but I’m just faster and happier with my gear. :)
@@MarcHerwigIt is, digital is great but digital is digital, what we listen to is physical vibration so of course it need more time/work most of the time if we work only in digital to make this physical sound natural, in the high end in this case.
1 is like cutted off over 16Khz, probably the vintage one, maybe a little more lowend ? or at least give the impression, maybe higher THD ? Prefere the transparency of the 2nd one for a female voice + Gtr, but like the "warm sound" of the 1rst one for a full band. IMO EDIT after reveal : my ears are fucked
Pre 2 sounded better to me, deeper low end and more clarity in the top while still being smooth. I recently got the Clarett and for the price it does sound amazing, the air function is very good, no matter which one is which I'm very happy with it. btw I suspect the clarett is no.1
