1073 blind test

[living sounds]

Hi everyone,


I made a little test with three different 1073s. Which one do you think is the UAD-1 Neve, which one do you like best?

The little loop in the sound file is repeated four times with the first one being the unprocessed version then followed by the different Neves (matched by eye, as it is impossible to get exactly the same settings on all of them).

Have fun!

Get the file here:

http://www.scherer.de/Download/NeveBlindTest.wav

 

[Captain Caveman]

The requested URL /Downloads/NeveBlindTest.wav was not found on this server

This is what I get when I click the link.

 

[baronluigi]

living sounds - (sarcastically in the style of the late Richard Pryor) your quality control is for shit, you spell 1073 as 1173, the link don't work, probably didn't have the track's armed or the mic's plugged in - mutha phucka can't get nothing working right!





seriously, great idea, but your link to the clips is not working

 

[living sounds]

Sorry, should work now.

 

[h4nc0]

2nd and 4th ones are close. 3rd example sounds like shit, too much lowend. I liked 2nd one best because its low is fuller sounding than the 4th one.

Care to tell us what different Neves were tested?

 

[living sounds]

I will, but not yet.

2nd and 4th ones are close. 3rd example sounds like shit, too much lowend. I liked 2nd one best because its low is fuller sounding than the 4th one.

Care to tell us what different Neves were tested?

 

[Schaap]

The takes I like the most are also 2 ( fat bottom and full :lol: ) and 4 (more highs and tighter in the low end).

Henk

 

[rydan]

Well, I kind of agree with previous comments. nr 3 has too much low end (would perhaps have been interrestning to try to set them as equally as possible using the ears instead of eyes) so it's hard to say anything about the sound in general, doesn't really compare. 2 and 4 are close, but 2 has a little more punch I think, so I go with nr2 as favourite as well...

 

[macmusic78]

same here - 3 is totaly out of the row - 2 & 4 r close . i´d go for 2....

now tell us

 

[Cat5]

I go for 4...2 is okay too. 3 is terrible. It sounds like somebody's homemade low rider (2 12\" subwoofers and a 5 inch full range).

 

[ed_mcg]

Same:

2nd and 4th ones are close. 3rd example sounds like shit, too much lowend. I liked 2nd one best because its low is fuller sounding than the 4th one.

 

[lonestar]

Same here.
Don't like #3 at all.
#2 is my fav.
#4 comes quite close, but the high end sounds just a tiny bit harsher.

I hope UAD isn't #3 (God forbid!) or #4, as IMHO its top end suffer from a little \"digitalitis\"...

 

[Koisan]

Cheated a bit - used a FFT analysis... :wink:

2nd \"NEVE\" almost 9~10dB boost as opposed to the ~5dB in the 43 to 258Hz region of 1 and 3 - very interesting, epecially as the knob settings are identical :?: :-k

 

[Mark Edmonds]

Great idea but seriously, number 3 sounds so far out that it makes me question how accurate the settings are in terms of matching. So bearing that in mind, all I am going to say is that I prefer #2.

Mark

 

[living sounds]

Okay, let's end it here. You guessed very well:

Number 2 is the UAD-1 Neve (the one that upsamples, of course).

Number 3 is the URS Neve. I know it's not a 1073, but the settings were closely matched. At the very least it should have similar characteristics and do a little magic... unfortunately it doesn't... It's not THAT bad an EQ, but with the Neve-like graphics and everything... Well, this really shows what great a job Universal Audio has done here.

Number 3 is an impulse response of the UAD-1 Neve with exactly the same settings. It comes very close indeed, the difference between the two tracks is at an RMS level well below 60dB, but it seems that it's actually audible. The interference signal shows a little difference in the bass region as well as a prominent echo, which might come from the DC offset that follows the Impulse - that happens with every EQ impulse, btw.


A sidenote: I also recognized the UAD-1 Neve does alter the sound - if you put 8 in a row there's an audible drop in the high end - might be due to the upsampling. But since it is nowhere near the magnitude the Pultec creates it really shouldn't bother anyone (who uses more than one Neve a track anyway).

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Unless there is some trickery in this test it is obvious that 2 and 4 are the UA plugs. Which is the SE is hard to tell. They both seem to have been downsampled though 3 was not.

#2 sounds a little smoother to me in the highs so I say its the full one.

2 and 4 are really really close though. Mastering guy close...

What is #3? URS? It would be good to hear something a little closer. I wonder if just a high shelf on the two would be good.

 

[ed_mcg]

Okay, let's end it here. You guessed very well:

Number 2 is the UAD-1 Neve (the one that upsamples, of course).

Number 3 is the URS Neve.

Ok, time to crack open the wallet, let some of he months out and get that 1073.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Heh... looks like I waited for the answer. It wasn't there when I started my post, but lord bless me if I really spent 30 minutes listening to that.

cAPS

 

[rydan]

Ok, here's another one, and this time, I've done as I suggested, and tried to get as equal sounding settings as possible. Four clips, the first is unprocessed, and the three next have EQ with a bit of high end boost, a bit of boost around 3.2k and quite some low end boost as well (in other words, a smiley curve... =) )

One of the three is the (upsampling) 1073, what the other two are, I won't say until later. So, well, feeling up to the challenge? ;o)

http://www.cutpaste.org/temp/BlindTest.wav

 

[ed_mcg]

(This is for the second, Rydan test)

Ok, I'll play:
1 (original) Honky (telephone filter effect)
2 Thumpy, bass heavy - disliked this one
3 Soft, natural, liked this the most
4 2nd best, More hyped high end, 4k sibelance on vox