It was an amazing shootout, the video couldn't be done more professionally! Your perfectionism in the way of capturing all these in most fair possible way, the time you took to show us several different takes individually, the null test at the end, even your speech and your comments were so well done, and on top of that you've got a soothing voice haha! Anyway it was very informative and it made me glad I bought the Apollo a few years ago, before I even knew they could be used with the Neve preamp plugin as well as other amazing sounding vintage machines emulations, I'm glad I've got them now haha, it was definitely a really good investment… Thanks a lot again for the great quality content!
@@MattHepworth you're welcome, I mean it! By the way, what system do you use to split the microphone cable into 4 different inputs on your DAW? And do you think it would be possible to do the same thing to split the signal into two inputs of the Apollo, for example one going into input 1 with the Neve preamp plugin on and the other one into input 2 with the Avalon 737 preamp plugin on? I own a U87 and I think it would be cool to compare the 2 preamps on the exact same takes like you did in the video.
Mine was custom built by Whirlwind back in the day. It's been very useful. There are several units that will let you do a two or three-way split that would work. Radial and Whirlwind both make one, as do a few other companies. Of course, you can also DIY.
I could hardly tell the difference, but I chose B and D as sounding fuller in the low end, so I chose these as the best. It’s funny because B turned out being…well y’all know.
most consistent test i've ever seen! i had the bae 1073 mpf and sold it because I couldn't tell a difference when comparing with uad 1073 but sometimes I miss it just because i felt like it was what the "pros" use
One of my colleagues made a really astute observation which is that the real differences are noticed when you track 20 different parts through mic pre's. In other words, it's cumulative. So, while it's difficult to hear the difference between these preamps with one single mic, that's only scratching the surface. Once you track 4 guitar parts, bass, drums and a bunch of vocals, the differences might become much more apparent.
Honestly, I can understand that concept when applied to a console, like when we used to track and mix everything through a particular desk with its own sound, but I really can't imagine these very subtle differences impacting the final in any significant way. And if you're worried about it, track the drums through API plugs, and the Vox through the Voxbox plug. That should actually make a difference you can hear.
This idea of stacking got passed around in the early to mid 2000's, but there was never any proof or evidence that it was actually true...or even if it was true that it would actually make it worse rather than just different or, heaven forbid, even better. Truth is, this is the last standing argument to why we'll spend $3000 for a preamp that only has subtle differences over an emulation that costs less than $100 these days. Anyway, we really have entered an era where all this stuff is different, not necessarily better. But we do just love to be wrapped in the loving arms of our vintage gear...
All true, however, One other thing to consider is build quality and features. I did buy 16 channels of Neve 1073 OPX pre's and I'm very happy with their performance, features, build quality, etc. Do they sound better than knock off versions? Maybe, maybe not. But, I do have 100% confidence in the quality. They also have high resale value if for some reason I decide to sell them. So, for me the decision to buy name brand equipment isn't always only about the sound.
I picked out the unison one right away. Honestly if the unison plugin was $99 and not $299 it would be more compelling but you can get a used heritage audio for like 650, at that price point I think it's worth the difference.
Thanks for going through the trouble of making the test and filming and editing the whole thing. It's a lot of work. And very interesting. I just bought high end headphones (focal clear mg (and you seem to be wearing HD800(s))) , and I could clearly hear different sound signatures in all 4 preamps. For me A was dark, B seemed to "blur" different freqs, C was clear, and D was somewhat sibilant. But that's just my old ears perhaps. Anyway, thank you very much for going through the trouble of making this very interesting video! :-)
The only one I could consistently pick out was the UAD. It had the same tells as amp sims with the high end sounding scratchy. In the vocals C I thought was the 1073 since the low end was more creamy and pleasing to me. Definitely my favorite out of them. But couldn't distinguish the hardware ones enough to pick one over the other. I love my UAD version. But this definitely settled it for me that at least 1 hardware unit for vocals is worth it for me.
This was so good and well done. And to my surprise in the blind test I got the unison one right but probabley because I'm use to uad 1073. I didn't get any of others right and in the blind test I preferred the sound of the heritage jr to them all. Thanks for taking time to make this
I'm a hobbyist and don't consider myself at all experienced in the finer points of professional audio, but managed to identify the Neve vintage.pretty easily, which was a pleasant surprise. It just seemed to have a fuller more saturated low end and greater warmth overall. By comparison the Unison, which I have, sounded fairly flat to my ears, though not unpleasantly so. Obviously, there's also the skill in actually setting the controls for the best audio capture, but many thanks indeed for taking the trouble to make this video. It was exactly what I was looking for.
Great shootout. But one thing to not ignore here is by comparing all those preamps together, and looking at all the comments on the various comparisons, it just goes to show that it really doesn't matter these days. Sound and all things audio is just so subjective to each individual. You could be using a cheap Behringer preamp or interface, and somebody just might prefer that sound over all the expensive units. But regardless, props to UA for a great modeled plugin.
The differences become much more apparent when you are using them for different purposes. For example, a podcaster doesn't care about why this or that pre-amp or microphone may sound better when it's used for dozens of overdubs mixed together at once. And why _would_ they? They care about how it sounds in _solo, in isolation!_ But hey... If anyone decides to "go all Behringer" for their next 24+ channel studio project, I wish them the best of luck.
Very impressive performance by the Apollo. My 69 year old musician/engineer ears ain't what they used to be in the high end, but I'm glad I've got an Apollo and I think I will pickup some of the preamp plugs. Thanks!
I am a unison user (that's what I can afford as a hobbyist on a budget 🙂). I liked "C" the best, and the unison the least, however the unison still sounded great and I am glad it is available to guys like me. 🙂 That was a great test. Thanks for posting. God bless.
preety depend what equipment people use. If someone do not listen on pro equip, how he can hear nuances? how much people here comment using cheap irelevant monitors?
Sorry, while the apollo sounds OK....I've used, and sadly purchased dang near every emulation they make trying to perfect the sound until I realized that the problem with the sound was actually IN the pres on board. The top end is gritty and has tons of digital chill and it really starts to show up in the high end. If you're a stickler for musical analog sound...or you think the top end between 4 and 10K is hella important in mixes GET THE OUTBOARD GEAR and run your pre line in with a balanced TRS cable. I purchased lots of expensive tube mics, a u47, a 269, even a c12 and I ran them through the apollo on the 1073, Avalon 737, api, Neve 88rs etc etc etc ALL OF EM... and no dice. The best one is probably the 88RS. If you can stomach the sound..run with it. I have to admit here that they sound very alike, but when I record here in my studio the sound is RADICALLY different. I have to have outboard pres running through as line in and that's when the music shows up. Sadly, I didn't realize it was the pres because so many people had said these units were great and I actually bought an RME babyface pro FS thinking is was something else in the interface causing the lack of 3D sound field...like maybe the converters were bad or something. Turns out it was the preamps in the damn thing the whole time. As soon as i put a legit 1073 in I was STUNNED at the difference. So the UAD pres are good...emulations are cool..but they aren't all that. Get a Great river and pop it in with your mic. Transients are a pain in the ass with that digital chill. I walked in circles trying to upgrade my studio. Wish someone had saved me the time. But if you're getting a great sound...you do you. But if not...Get a bitchin outboard pre....something to sculpt the tone before it hits the converters and turns that sweetness into the digital realm. Digital chill is for the birds. Anyway..long text..thanks for your video and efforts.
Great preamp shootout! I think I mostly prefer Heritage Audio and Neve LB, that sound almost similar, with some saturation perhaps at the low mids and low end. On the other hand Vintage Neve and UAD sound almost the same. Great job from UAD though!
I wish every Shoot Out Comparsion Video would be made like this! This is how it should be! But honestly I really don't know why we Audio Nerds are carryng so much about these tiny little Differences out there that no Consumer cares about or even can hear or will noticed
Unison seems slightly boomier between 120-180 Hz if only a dB or two, but it "lumps" the dynamics a bit and could accumulate rapidly unless EQ'ed out of tracks or offset by mic response.
Another thing related to the boominess is that the clones have a more pronounced effect on volume of the high note that immediately follows the bass note, similar to (but more subtle than) how a drumbeat into compression with no hi-pass in the sidechain squashes the highs. The LB kept the highs a little better - even the vintage 1073 sounded comparatively rubbery/slewed in this chain. Higher tolerance parts, I suspect, is partly why.
I guessed right. Heritage was the darkest one, Unison was the brightest one, LB was even and the Vintage sounded most like the Unison but was a tad more even. I liked the LB the best, but all very close except I think the Heritage was noticeably darker.
I hear the same. HA bit less open, UA bright but ok, LB and Vintage very close. Mabey vintage bit open . Since vintage is not option, LB i am interested. HA is bit cheaper and sound bit cheaper. UA suprise me. Good job for them. btw, I listen on Neuman monitors and SSL interface.
What an awesome shootout, you did a great job, thanks! in the blind test I knew that I didn't like the 1st preamp (Heritage), it just sounds too lifeless and dull, but I had a hard time hearing the differences with the other 3. The Unison is shockingly close. In the end I prefer the AMS and vintage Neve.
What an absolutely amazing comparison video. Regarding the differences... On it's own it really doesn't sound like much. The blind test fooled, I don't mind admitting. But I've found that you need to improve every single part of your chain, to start getting great results. Room, mic, cable, pre amp, interface, AD/DA conversion... If anything in the chain is weak, the whole thing will fall apart. But if everything is working OK, then differences get smaller and smaller. It's the point of diminishing returns.
His comparison is better than other "more main streamers". This is by far the best comparison. Just that sometimes I wonder how they sound different from a audio interface preamp, just because I'm considering (and struggling)to decide my first preamp.
Thanks for taking the time to do this comparison - it's really useful!! One other thing you might consider (or might have considered) as a control, would be to do a null test with two identical preamps. For example, record a source through two identical pre's to see just how much they null. That would create a baseline for how much null can be expected in the best case scenario. Still, this is a very good test you did. It's much appreciated!!
Two Unison pres effectively nulled (zero audible sound). I didn't have pairs of any of the others. I also nulled each split against each other out of my splitter prior, and I was pleasantly surprised that each split effectively nulled.
btw, I loaded some of the audio from this video into my DAW and did a series of null tests on my own. I got nearly complete null between the Heritage and LB. All I could really hear was the artifact from the compressed (mp3) audio. Interestingly, the least amount of null I got was between the LB and the Vintage. Isn't that interesting? Just to keep things super honest, I tested null on L vs R of each sample. All 4 samples 100% canceled their respective L/R channels. I also tried adjusting the levels by hundredths of a db to see if there was any level difference at play. None was found. But it does make me wonder how you're sure you're getting the exact same output level from each mic pre into your DAW. btw, you mentioned that you did do a null test with just the splitter to make sure it wasn't contributing, but you used the term "effectively" nulled. Were you hearing a tiny bit of bleed? I think it should cancel 100%, no? I do not think I can past a blindfold A/B test. Even loading into my own system and putting it on a 1 bar loop, I can't hear the differences.
Great analysis! I think the reason nothing nulls well against the vintage is simple: more non-linear behaviour. The vintage has more harmonic content/distortion than the newer units (probably mostly due to age).
Vintage 1073 sounded amazing across each take, Unison had a very consistent character that I’m happy to have, the other two had a certain sponginess in the low mids that I didn’t enjoy (although let’s be honest, it’s extremely minute differences). Every pre had something I wanted to boost/cut, however the Vintage had an unmatched richness. Undoubtedly this doesn’t matter in the context of a mix - good chance the Unison wins out in that regard as it’s a little more “crispy” than the other three.
Thanks for doing this Matt. They are so insanely close that I could not reliably identify the differences between the LN, vintage and heritage, but having said that, the Unison stuck out every time to me. The Unison has this ~600Hz "honk" that I battle with daily so I could always spot it. Also, the Unison also doesn't quite get the rich low end of the others as well.
I use a Capi 312 on acoustic with a straight cardioid large. If I had to pick one of these. C 1073LB was very subtle clearer and controlled to my old ears. Sounded best through my mains and my Bluetooth. Very Subtle Less muddy. Sounds like it would sit better in a mix with less EQ.
Im having a serious case of GAS (gear aquiring syndrome) but i CANNOT justify buying a Neve preamp, when I already have the Unison version after hearing this. It misses a little bit of "sponginess" on acoustic guitar, but the differences are so minute it is not worth forking out so much money. Well done UA!
This is really great especially for a newbie like me. So I am enough of a newbie guitar player I am beginning to hear the tone every one talks about and while my AmpliTube 5 Max is great and will probably work great for live or even YT compressed recordings. However the new UA Dream 65 has made a major impact of my use case so has the Volt. Becoming a UA fanboy wish I had purchased an Apollo and will eventually upgrade.
The only one I got right was the 1073LB, because I owned a DPX and they share the same "quality" - the constricted, slightly compressed sound - the opposite of open. It is also the reason I sold my DPX. Heritage Audio sounds really good tho...
Listening on a small domestic speaker, pre-amp D popped out right away as just being louder and more forward. I’m certain that the RU-vid compression makes the samples rather more homogeneous than they would be in the studio.
The Neve 1073LB is very similar to the Vintage Neve 1073 when it comes to tone and the high end. It just seem to me that the 1073LB has a tighter low end and the Vintage 1073 have more weight and open kinda sound. The Heritage 73 had just sounded a little darker and doesn't have those nice highs like the other Neve's. UAD not bad but sound to thin.
Pretty good, all the pres. Listening on the phone, after the initial pass (with the preamp tags visible), it was pretty easy to recognize the vintage 73: it’s just perfect, no harshness, sweet and frequency extended (hi end, no idea lo end) and the Unison (good response but less extension and a touch harsher high mids). Harder to distinguish were the Heritage (on the first/tag pass it sounded to me a drop boxier and more closed than the LB) and the LB (more hi end emphasis and less depth in the 1st pass). In fact, I couldn’t . I just knew the first 2 were LB or Heritage. Couldn’t identify which. Again, great test. My conclusion: there is definitely a sound quality value to vintage gear. It is NOT hype. The modern gear harshness is not imagined. I know that every vintage channel ever sounds different from any other and that age makes almost impossible to know how it did sound when new and how many repairs and spare parts have changed the sound, but this same thing happened when comparing 414s. The vintage EB’s just sounded like a record. This by no way means one can’t make better sounding records than before, but it just needs a little more work and probably accounts for the proliferation of resonance supressors and dynamic eqs. Again, thanks for the great test.
Matt-What a great gift you gave us! Thanks brother! I just bought a 1073LB --it sounds better to my ears than any other mic pre, in every shootout I've heard. Got a BAR 2-space to pier it. Vocal, bass, & acoustic & electric guitar are mainly what I track w a mic. Sold my great clones...The LB is so rich, & easy to mix!
on the short takes its much easier to tell the neves the edges are smoother and the mid is bigger and more present i always listen for high end to see if its gets harsh or brittle or stays clear and smooth!
I might have gotten lucky, but I guessed the unison correctly. Kinda confirmed it on the last vocal sample… I think transformers reveal themselves when there are quicker transients. It’s not a quality thing as much as it is just a certain response/feel. Great video! Thanks!
@@MattHepworth I am getting ready to purchase a lunch box, and a Neve 500 series style. Looking currently at 1073 Lb or R88Lb. No clue as to which box to get? Any thoughts about these 3? Or other suggestions- Thanks!
@@tabodee The 1073LB does a pretty good job, as you can hear in the test, but my choices in this case would be either the Heritage, or an Avedis MA5. I still have a 1073LB and use it a lot, but I prefer the MA5 almost all the time. I no longer have the Heritage or vintage.
based on the blind test, I thought these and for me this is the order: C - clear, more present (1073LB) D - clear, more front (Vintage 1073) B - low end boost, little mud and swish (Unison Neve 1073) A - balanced, little mud (HA-73jr)
i was a gearhead for a long time spending thousands but i realized that the music it was counts. i kept my oldscool isa 430 producer pack wich is a monster of a box and the rest had to leave wich actually helped me to focus on the important part... the music.
Wow, maybe RU-vid compression is hurting this, but I really liked the Unison vocals! It has the "profile" of the hardware but just cleaner. Really good job from UA on this one!
I think that's a pretty accurate description. Having spent plenty of time with the wav files, I feel like the differences are reasonably maintained in the RU-vid version, as long as you're watching at at least 720p.
Same. And that was with a Google Pixel phone speaker and hearing aids. LB was my favorite. Best blend of smoothness/creaminess and modern tone. I've come to realize I appreciate the Neve 1073 pre-amp tone, but hate the 1073eq that is too gritty and garagebandish. The LB is perfect for me.
I'm so proud of myself. I got them all correct! HA73 has a little "honk" to it Unison has... no defining characteristic. Still sounds good! LB was most forward Vintage had a particular sparkle the others didn't have. And in the vocal test, before the reveal, I preferred C. Makes sense because it was most forward and that's what I was listening for.
@@MattHepworth the Heritage was definitely a bit darker, and had a slightly rougher midrange. My preference was for the Neves. Probably the 1073LB and the vintage, with the UAD very close behind. Excellent shootout!
Great work. I picked A & D. Low mids from HA are misleading . Makes u think thicker is better. LPF could reveal more. I agree is difficult to pick… It’s really splitting hairs… hm….
Great video, lot's of care put into it. Next time though, please hit those transformers harder and get some saturation, especially on vocals. The Unison doesn't compare to Neve hardware when pushed, but it's really nice otherwise, for what it is.
Listening on really nice mixing headphones, the og 73 sounds much more warmer & full. The way I describe it lately is much more information being captured.
great shootout. With the guitars, it was close. While blind, I actually liked the Heritage the most on vocals, sounded a little darker, less sibilant to me. But, in the context of a song I may have wanted more air? Only thing I'd personally like to see is the Apollo w/o unison, so we can see how much the unison plug is affecting the stock pre... cheers.
My Blind Test Rankings were: #1. C- 1073 LB #2. B- Unison 1073 #3. D- Vintage 1073 #4. A- HA 1073 I immediately knew, blindly, that the lunchbox was my favorite. I don't own it, but the clarity and creamy smooth midrange is why we love Neve. If it wasn't for the clarity on the Unison 1073, I would have picked the Vintage 1073; It really tricked me! I literally thought B was the LB and C was the Vintage. D was just too warm for my ears and that's okay if you like that sound. I just knew for sure A had the worst "mud"-range. (Hence why the highs in the null test were so quiet, the HA copied the highs but not the mids and lows. if we had tested drums or something with more transients, I'm sure I would have picked D first, then C second because that's where analog hardware thrives. If you're broke like me, Unison gets you really really close for cheaper. If you want the Neve sound with a modern tone, then save up for a 1073LB. But if you want that old "warm" sound, then go all out on the vintage. But Try not to cheap out on clones if you're serious about clarity and studio mixing. This is an amazing test. Thank you so much.
I can't hear a huge difference that justify investing in real hardware compared to my Apollo x4. You make very interesting and great content! I try to do the same humble job on my little French Chanel. See ya 🙏
Great comparison! I was hoping the unison would be more impressive, but it lacks the dept and weight of the Neve. I was able to pick each of the 4 amps correctly. Although they are close and will work in a mix, the vintage Neve is on a different level.
@@MattHepworth that's like when comparing vintage guitar gear say where (unlike this) cheap unit were made at first with poor control. So some old units are awesome and some or worse (plus parts degrading over the decades) vs new built to spec clones which sound completely different.
Yeah. With vintage units the'll still be in the same ballpark (like all the pres in this shootout), but as components age and degrade over the years we may hear some of that as positive on one unit and not as positive on another.
I don’t thing the difference is small, they all sound similar because it’s the same part, but sonically I could tell from the first clip all of them apart! It helps having trained ears, being jazz musician, who grew up with vinyl and is a sound e engineer. Probably most people can’t tell the difference, but that doesn’t make me no hear it! I always like analog better
UA great yet a bit too brittle/sibilant in comparison to similar bright sound of the classic 1073. Ua good on dark instruments not as nice on the vocals that 1073LB was more pleasant on to the ear. The LB could be EQd into a more "air-ish" sound as it would take more than eq to smooth out the digital artefacts in the plugin. The microphone can compound the issue depending on the frequency response. Owning the Unison 1073 amongst loads of UA plugins, i was tired of dealing with that amd just got rid of the UA once i picked up a Lynx (n) and 1073n. I think the UA is best for people really planning on buying loads of the plugins as you can then use them on all your tracks at once if you spend enough money on DSP chips or grab X8 or X 6.
The neve handles the low mids cleanly, 2 of em distort it slightly (maybe it’s harmonics) giving it a warm effect & one is very meh (unison) but can get u by
Hi thanks for video! Vintage 1073 sounds superb with that gentle HF space inside on acoustic guitar! I have an old EMU interface with an old cap preamps and want to buy an Golden Age Premiere 1073 if i will keep up. A and D are great on guitar. B and D on vocals here. B on vocal a bit to much sharp and reveal a distortion.
Just commenting guitar since I play just accoustic instruments.....HA bit less open, UA refreshing after HA, LB and Vintage very close. Mabey vintage bit wide . Since vintage is not option, LB i am interested or even SPX variant with EQ since it is cheaper than two separate pre+eq LB version. HA is bit cheaper and sound less open but with bit a EQ in HMF would open the sound... UA suprise me. Good job for them. btw, I listen on Neuman monitors and SSL interface.
Very good work! But... Neve and api preamps start to "sound" when you push them. In low gain (clean) situations they are just as good as Audient, Presonus or even behringer. You're not going to use them to boost, you don't have to pay for them ;-)
Thanks for doing this. I think I can pick out D every time. It's slightly darker and gooeyer, if that's a word lol. And it does have more beautiful mid harmonic content. But the caveat is how they break up. Neves should be pushed on the front end, then used the fader to pull back, so distorting the xformers. That's where the magic happens amd I feel that these preamps weren't pushed like that. That's where the real harmonics and low end starts to blossom. Would it be possible for you to make another video but pushing each preamp?
Thanks for the comments! I no longer have the vintage or the Heritage, unfortunately. This may sound surprising, but the hard clipping they produce when pushed (including the vintage) is rarely desirable to me for anything but special effects, since the distortion is so obvious. The Neve as a fuzz box has become more popular the last decade or so, though. You're right about D having more harmonics. I believe it's from the components drifting further out of spec over the years.
is this like comparing the new corvette against a Tesla against a lambo ? I'd drive all of them. but I guess with audio it comes down to the $ and if you don't have the $money to spend on the hardware, the unison gets you to the finish line nicely, The Unison technology in the 1073 plug-in not only replicates the sound and feel of the original preamp, but also replicates the impedance and gain staging of the original hardware. It’s meant to accurately capture the analog hardware in a digital space, without having to use the actual hardware. So you can think of it as a way to get the sound of the 1073 without needing to own the hardware.
Im curious if the impedence settings on the various units would have played a role in the results of this shootout. The apollo sounded so much like the vintage 1073, i would have expected it to do much better in the null test.
