Neve 1073 DPA vs. Universal Audio 610 Pre Amp

[@johncameron1678]

I was surprised at the results, I preferred #2 all the way through but didn't expect the Neve to have more character than the 610! Bravo NEVE!!!!

[@ArcticBulletNation]

The first time I heard Preamp 2, I immediately knew it was the Neve. The Neve has this awesome classic, distortion and frequency harmonics.

[@wyrlismike]

same here

[@KrematoriumStudio]

DAMNNNN!!!!!!!! THAT NEVE IS WARM!!!!! I thought the thicker bottom send of Pre #2 was coming from the UA610 tube! lol AWSOME VIDEO MAN!!!

[@griploc1981]

i own both preamps technically(the 610 solo and the neve 1073N) and i could tell right away with the first phrase from the vocalist that preamp 1 was the 610 and the 1073 just sounds sweeter and bigger and warmer. they both are amazing in their own right and have their uses

[@arinrobinson]

I agree that both preamps are distinctive and therefore have their individual niche. I lean more toward the 610 as it tends to set the highs and lows in place in a less dramatic manner. I guess it's a matter of preference.

[@JoshuaKrell]

Agreed!

[@shaft9000]

The 500 ohm setting on the 610 darkens and weakens the SM58's (150 ohm) response significantly. It "likes" ~1500 ohm. If he'd increased the impedance on the 610 to 2K ohm and lowered the gain he'd have gotten closer to matching the Neve's brighter air-band range, and produced a bigger sound.

[@EddieJarnowski]

I chose #2 preamp for all. Guess i'm going to get one now lol. It was either a 1073 or a 610. Thank you for helping me choose! Great video!

[@6stringks]

I use 2 UA-6176, never been harsh to my ears and I LOOOVE them. It’s all taste in the end imho.

[@muhammadsarmadhussain3400]

I was listening in the headphones and I instantly knew that amp 1 is UAD 610. I like the tube sound.

[@G_handle]

Even though this is years old, it’s still relevant. What I would add to what others have said. IMO, and experience, Everyone’s first Mic should be a Dynamic (Shure SM57 studio, 58 live each under $100)(or their big brothers for $400+ are the SM7b or the EV RE-20). The reason is the Room. Dynamics reject far more of the Room, and LDCs hear everything. So until you can invest in Room Acoustics, LDCs will cause you more issues. The Source to Room ratio is critical in a Bad/Live Room, and with a Dynamic you can nearly eliminate it. (Take an SM7B and you can get right up on it with minimal Pops and Proximity Effect, LDC no way) And for all the KZbin expert advice out there suggesting you Need an LDC or you’re somehow not professional, recall that Quincy Jones and Bruce Swedien chose from every $10000 microphone on earth, at Westlake Studios, a $400 Shure SM7 .......for Michael Jackson, on a little album called Thriller, the highest selling album of all time, and likely the most recognizable vocals ever recorded. Now, as others have said, LDCs have active electronics (that’s why they need 48v phantom power) in the body of the microphone, and are therefore produce relatively“hot signals”. Dynamics have no active electronics and rely on the next devices in the chain to provide additional gain to bring their very low levels up to “Line”. Therefore, a LDC can patch right into an “Interface Preamp”, which are usually a few really cheap ICs purely for gain, and be set fairly low, exhibiting very little additional coloration to what’s coming from the microphone. Dynamics however need a lot of gain, and encouraging you to crank the Interface Preamps to the max, where they often sound horrible, and end up corrupting the signal coming from the microphone, leading people to think Dynamics sound bad. They were good enough for Michael Jackson, but not you? A couple of things you can do: First, Don’t crank garbage Preamps! Instead, there’s a three step workaround. A) Solo the microphone, turn down the Pre and turn UP the volume on your headphones, and Listen to what preamp gain level Sounds the best, that’s the level to record that microphone. B) your going to have to set a headphone mix of whatever other music you’re listening to while you perform LOW enough to not blow your head off at that headphone volume, get your artist mix to taste, and record. C) for your real mix, that mic was recorded super low, but you can add nearly endless gain In Your DAW without any of the negative artifacts of cranking cheap Preamps. Pump it back up (or dare I say Normalize All your tracks to -18dBFS RMS /-6dBFS Peak) before you mix. The other thing you can do, is bump the gain on the way in. And there are a number of ways to do that. But before that, let’s say this: in the good ol days of Analog when we were recording to Tape, that tape had a noise floor and hiss. So too did all the electronics in the signal chain. So it was Analog Religious Practice to get the best Signal to Noise Ratio from the Microphone to the Tape. That meant pushing Every gain stage right up to (and often into), distortion, to get the signal as far away from the floor as possible. With old electronics, every device that Added gain to a signal, also added its own “Color” to that signal as it passed through. Technically that “color” was Distortion and gear designers we’re trying Not to have any distortion, the goal was straight wire, but Musically that distortion proved to be useful, and producers and engineers began to see it as a feature rather than a bug. So Mastering your gear meant testing everything you had to find it’s Floor where the noise was unacceptable, it’s Ceiling where the distortion was unacceptable, it’s Clean Spot where it produced the cleanest possible signal, and it’s Sweet Spot, where it wasn’t just passing the signal, but also adding it’s own unique flavor. I would also note that, many of the “boutique” “outboard” preamps of today, began life as the Onboard console preamps of the past. The Neve 1073, API 312, UA 610, Focusrite ISA, SSL VHD, these all came out of desks and were boxed up and given power supplies and I/O so they could be used without the $100,000 board they were in. So back to tracking your SM57 / SM7B. If you patch it straight into pretty much any modern Interface, and follow my procedure A, you’ll record pretty much the cleanest vocals your untreated room can produce. Then bump it up in the DAW, and add EQ, Compression, DeEssing, whatever you do, in plugins. But, if you so choose, you can add that gain, with or without additional color, Before you press record. (Let me inject here, that if going the straight route, the Audient Interfaces, sound amazing, and are the only interfaces I know of that use the same Preamps as in their $100,000 consoles. That’s because they used chips from the beginning, but did it right. They also come in models for all budget sizes, and again you Will use the pres.) If you have an interface (or desk) with mediocre Preamps that get worse when you boost the gain. There are what I call “Clean Gain Boxes”, that essentially Add the active electronics in a Condenser to a Dynamic microphone. They take 48v Phantom and boost the mic signal 20-25dB with virtually no additional noise or coloration, which allows you to turn down your interface Preamps into a zone that sounds better. Thing is, they ain’t cheap. The Cloudlifter, the most popular, is $150. The Fethead is $90, sounds as good, I have both. Now for Live Audio, they are very useful problem solvers, but in the studio, there are other solutions. For one, I think of them as the gain that should have been in the interface in the first place. Expensive interfaces have plenty of gain, cheap ones got cheap by cutting something, and that was the preamps. But spending $150 more to get what you might save with a cheap interface doesn’t make sense. Invest in a better interface. (Again, bang for buck in 2020, Audient. SSL. Then UAD.) And the results will Not be better than using procedure A. Because, the sound quality issue is what level you use the interface Pre gain at. (PS, this will all be moot eventually, soon even. The same way your mobile phones and laptops have gotten insane, so have the chips inside of all electronics including the preamps in interfaces. Good gain chips And converter chips cost next to nothing compared with 10 years ago. Imagine 10 years from now.) So that’s the clean gain story. But if you’re adding gain, you may think why not a little color? For dinosaurs like me, massaging every signal on the way in was what the game was about. However, recording clean, or conservatively colored, then processing later was always a thing too. And, since I own all this gear, and it sounds so nice, might as well use it twice.

[@jessedreher7378]

Exactly.

[@G_handle]

@Shane Marquis Yes Shane?...

[@DeadOriginal]

Thank you for the info

[@G_handle]

@@DeadOriginal Thank you for appreciating info!

[@DeadOriginal]

@@G_handle we bought a $35 booster via Neutrik

[@jonspacely]

The Neve sounds clear and transparent, you can hear every nuance. However, the 610 colors the sound in a desirable way. I personally liked the sound of the 610 better, but I can see why workhorse studios would opt for the Neve.

[@jeremyray2647]

I just like that you used a 58 instead of some Epic microphone no mortal can afford. Everyone watching this video should know what to expect from a 58:)

[@slavesforging5361]

agree completely. it's so important to use gear that everyone is familiar with in demos. they did the same thing with the guitar pedals too. a RAT is a very ubiquitous pedal, and so is the tubescreamer style by analog man they used. very well done across the board.

[@nocuh]

For me it was obvious as soon as I heard the midrange of the Male vocals with PRE AMP #2 [the Neve]

[@joenelson7995]

Spoiler douche bag

[@Jordansparte]

Joe Nelson Perhaps watch the video first before reading the comments, as not to have any "douche bag" spoil it for you ;)

[@pirateradio808]

Joe Nelson -- Honestly if you couldn't figure it out yourself from the first clip, you don't have any business spending Neve kind of money on a preamp.

[@samfowles6059]

Thanks for taking the time to do this- it helped to confirm my thinking regarding my own preamp preferences.

[@DawnLauryn]

I preferred the Neve. It was a bit more dry, but sounded natural while also eliminating semblance in the female vocals. BTW, this was a really good shoot out. I wish I could find one this good for mic shoot outs, but I can't. Especially re: vocal mics where most of them look like artists just trying to promote themselves vs. giving viewers a good representation of the mics being compared. So many people belting out their vocals and trying to sing like divas vs. letting us hear what the MIC is doing. Thanks for sharing!!! P.S. I thought the girl did a great job. I wish she would have been the one demoing mics! I can't believe someone made such a rude comment about her, but whatever...some people are just jerks and don't care about other people's feelings, so I hope my comments help her feel better. Constructive criticism, I can see the sense in that, but he was just being a nasty, inconsiderate person. Haters gonna hate. It's a demo FFS, not the Grammys!

[@DanMarcelino]

the neve has wayy more mids going on and is pretty chunky, the UA is very warm and has a smooth clean tubey sound, two very impressive and useful pres!!

[@chandlerartiss9739]

i agree i think they both have there pros and cons.

[@taylorgroove]

agree,,,,i only prefer the neve on female vocals...add some nice harmonics and body to me....in the rest...win the uad, even when im a neve fan!! ajaj greetings

[@shanesean7006]

your so right im agree . la610 is very sooth and warm but 1073 a little harsh and thin

[@caminglis53]

It’s amazing how Rupert was able to image a transformer in a way that adds characteristics or weight, and come up with the neve sound... if you look at what he’s talking about even now over at Rupert Neve designs it’s much the same ‘class A custom designed circuits with ideal transformers- i/O’s and the sort of 3rd harmonic flavor and space that is provided at the end of it all on the output. He’s really a very focused and accurate sound engineer and designer, and he has no respect for toeing the line of the conventional text book basic rules - that tell us to ‘do this or do that’... He really is a 1 in a-million, bold accurate yet truly humble visionary with superbly creative mind and vision.

[@JanusJanavas]

I liked the preamp #2. It was smoother, with no harshness, and more musical. The Neve 1073 rocks!

[@jessedreher7378]

This is awesome! Everyone thinking about buying preamps needs to watch this. The two most epitomized preamps... So amazing that I got to meet you once in front of Guitar Center in Keizer when I sold you my old Boss DM 2. I so so so so so miss that thing :( Was in a hard place when I had to sell it... Anyway, I wish you well Mr. Shnobel! Your videos are on point and very well done. Thank you!

[@jessedreher7378]

PS Why the hell would anyone dislike this video? WTF???!!!!

[@robertjericho6291]

both sound great. I have the 610 so I new right away that it was #1 but I liked the Neve a lot on the female vocals and distortion guitar. The 610 was better in my opinion, on the clean and slightly dirty electric guitar.

[@bodhimian]

you have to remember that the sm58 is naturally very bright in that above-the-nasal hi mid area. so the neve pushing that out for this mic is not surprising, but if u take a more flat mic, it might give u that push to make ur vocals sail through the mix. Neves are also punchier on things like drums and bass i've found. its really a dance between mic selection pre-amp selection and what frequencies that instrument wants to sit in your mix. I like both of these a lot... but for different applications. I also like the API's and quad eights i've heard too but very different than a tube 610

[@jules7168]

I don't know if I'm fooling myself, I could be. But I instantly wow'ed when I heard preamp #2, despite the fact that I came here to hear preamp #1 since I was reading great things about it. And I'm listening on macbook pro speakers.

[@鄭華漢]

Thanks for the comparison! It’s of great help! I put on my headphones and right after the female vocal started I immediately choose pre #2 as my preferred one. Since I never own any high end pre, now I know which I prefer, and its an easy win with Neve to me. Thanks a real lot!

[@jeremyoswin9535]

Thank you! I’m looking for another harmonic coloring & transient smoothing preamp (and immediately guessed which was which). I love how the 610 softens & polishes any rough edges (sounding more “mastered” to me). The 1073 sounded faster, articulate, and honest (which sometimes is exactly what I want, just not for my next purchase).

[@XxXGuitarL0VXxX]

Was listening through my iPhone speakers and could instantly tell which was which. Both great for different situations.

[@hazybrain7]

Cool shootout. Neve wins hands down for me...

[@Mishatheaudioguy]

I own both and prefer 1073 overall

[@RUDOLPHLYRICS]

I was shocked that the 610 was #1. It's the one I was liking more during the vid

[@ourcollectiveinsanity]

completely agree.

[@terrillmel]

I swear Preamp 1 sounded more like a Neve. I was so confused.

[@saloliveriproducer]

Listen to the attack and recovery right after the transients. That's the give-away of the 610 tube circuit. The Neve is punchier and "faster".

[@alexjaroff449]

Why you set 500oHm in the mic switch? For Shure sm58 need to 2.0k oHm... From manual: Typically, a microphone preamplifier should have input impedance roughly equal to about 10 times the microphone output impedance. For example, if your microphone has an output impedance of approximately 200 ohms, the switch should be set to the 2.0K position. Thank you for great review, mr. Shnobel !

[@davegrodzki]

Excellent & informative video with a great variety of sources and consistency in the takes. Night and day difference between the two. Also, that outro had me look up the band Intermute - what a great song! Thanks for sharing that as well!

[@brianmartin7710]

I own both and it was easy to hear that the first is the UA. UA sounds much warmer and smother. the neve has more grid in the highs. they are my favorite 2 pres. neve is the best when the voice needs more bite and the UA is the most balaced and warmest pre and you can use it for nearly everything.

[@joelizquierdo]

I have an UA 610 and it always end up my main vocal mic pre for everyone I record. It’s so warm and complete. They could’ve use a better microphone though.

[@stanleyassor3172]

2 all the way

[@bobbyhofermusic]

Nailed it! Preamp #2 has that neve low mid oomph that the 610 does not. Both sound great, though!

[@rickneibauer1]

I thought the Neve sounded warmer on vox, but the 610 sounded better with guitars... more clarity. Thank you!

[@christophermiles6778]

I liked the character of the 1073 on the vocals and the openness of the 610 on the guitars.

[@vp5209]

Neve sounds beautiful as well the singing

[@midi510]

Not to be negative here, but a good condenser mic would have given much more detail and transient information to compare than an SM58. If that's all ya got, then that's all ya got, but it can't show the preamps off properly.

[@shnobeltone]

Thats all i had at that time

[@wackenthaljef]

+shnobel ..Yes snobel its good to put a cheap mic,cauz on YT home studist are watchin' and so we can hear what is a good pre,its a good thing you did.

[@urwholefamilydied]

+jeff “jeffbwack” wackenthal no it's not good he used an sm58... anyone that can afford either of these amps will be 90 percent of the time throwing a condenser through it. But, like he said, that's all he had at the time, so moot point.

[@wackenthaljef]

+Charles J Gartner Mmmm...,if you buy a preamp in a 500series,you can afford a top preamp for less money and less if you Do It Yourself,like a CAPI Illinois...if you havnt the money for more better mic,its better than noth in! No?

[@snippletrap]

+midi510 I respectfully disagree. Condenser mics have their own amps, so the mic pre is contributing less to the signal. In fact, some condenser mics are so hot a mic pre is unnecessary. Dynamic mics, by contrast, rely completely on the mic pre for a hotter signal, so we end up with a more accurate representation of its quality and character.

[@gruponemesis]

you can hear the suttle darkness of the 610....very nice

[@bentyreman5769]

I was amazed at how much better #2 sounded, #1 is harsh in comparison

[@shanesean7006]

woow its the other way around la610 is smooth and creamy but 1073 is harsh and bad color

[@michaelarthur4764]

The 610 sounded smoother and warmer than the 1073 to my ear

[@johnnycab8986]

I liked the UA on vocals and acoustic, Neve on electric

[@the_newvoice]

Yeah, it was balanced and musical. Neve was too obvious structure

[@BeauSkowron]

Hey shnobel - thanx for doing this. Like a bunch of people below I can't usually hear jack $hit difference but this was great. Don't get me wrong, can't afford either of them- but that doesn't change that now I know what I want! Good one.

[@thirdroompro]

Sample one is very honest, simple. Sample 2 simply opens up way more and puts the source right there in front of my monitor. 58 is a fine mic to use. Goes to show how important preamps are. If the song was great and the Engineer good, that 58 would make a fantastic record.

[@smpiggystudio]

I am thinking of buy a Warm EQ273 for Neve kind sound, thank you for this review, Neve sound more solid in bottom, and it helps me make the decision. Thanks!

[@ajw21778]

#1 had more presence in the upper midrange and teetered on being harsh. #2 was smoother in the upper mids and had more body.

[@shanesean7006]

its the opposite

[@arturio55]

I agree.

[@arturio55]

#2 definitely has more body, can tell with female voice and acoustic guitar

[@statisxsavilion2179]

@@shanesean7006 definitely the opposite

[@noctamb0]

i recorded all day with the LA-610 and i so recognized the highs of it…and then the sound at the moment he gets louder..guess its the saturation…thats what i heard all day :) But i thought of the 610 to be pretty warm and in this example the Neve sounds even warmer to me...really liked that sound…definitely gonna try it next time…cool video!

[@marvsimms5203]

noctamb0

[@GUSTAV1CC]

I like 1 so far it sounds smoother.

[@ikckcods]

I agree. I'm surprised at how many people, though, preferred the sound of the Neve. Both are great preamps, but the 610 sounds to me, smoother and more real.

[@orangemaniabrother2232]

Yeah, 610 is smoother, a lot of people saying the Neve is smoother, but it's not, the Neve is quite sharp in comparison, not to its discredit though

[@HintOfLogic]

Excellent demo / shootout - thanks for sharing. LIKED! Both are brilliant pre's but I would add... for the price of the NEVE strip, you could get the U.A. 6176, not to mention the LA-610 MK II (with comp and output trim). You can't go wrong with any of the above, including the 610 brick, but for those comparing before shopping, a "price point" comparison would be closer to NEVE 1073 vs. U.A. 6176

[@TimMilliken]

I have LA-610 and Warm 273 and RND 5211. There’s a big beautiful depth and dimension when a great singer on a great condenser like U67 goes through the 610. Not that the Neve doesn’t also have it but it’s a bit grittier in the mids. That makes 1073 awesome for rock vocals guitars etc especially with dynamic mics. Big Fat Beautiful Butter is 610. 1073 is more versatile and probably better on more sources but I love having the 610 for vocals bass and things that benefit from a roomier more dimensional sound.

[@VincentKearney1967]

They both sound great , I have two UA LA 610 mk II ,might buy a couple of Neve 1073 DPA's , thanks for the shoot out !!!

[@terrillmel]

Very interesting. I personally liked the UA on the male voice - the neve brought out frequencies that were irritating to me. However, on the girl the Neve was easily the winner - those frequencies I didn't like on the male voice made the female voice sound so smooth and was much less muffled. The UA for acoustic. The Neve for electric.

[@thedaleyo]

For me it was the 610, but only just, both are warm sounding and surprisingly I thought both lacked a little high mid shimmer, most likely the sm58 though. Overall both were pretty detailed and combined with a good large condenser both are a lot better sounding than in this shoot out.

[@joorchampi3346]

Yo tengo un Ua 610 en voces es muy bueno, y no lo cambio por otro!!! Pero ambos son buenos previos igualmente. Hubiera estado bien probarlos con micros de condensador, que es donde se nota más pero bueno gracias igualmente por el video, un saludo.

[@MarkusWutte]

UA for vocals, Neve for instruments - what a nice combination in the mix.

[@3rdiofficial528]

I was surprised at how good they both made the 58 sound... would've liked to hear a condenser though. My only take on this is that the neve sounds more boomey, which I actually don't mean in a negative, just more lo end for sure and slightly more saturated.

[@geoffreymerrifield5666]

My thoughts exactlty re: condenser!

[@michaelcain853]

so were gonna pretend we didnt notice the singers up closer on preamp#2?

[@nataliedepaul7482]

This is brilliantly done. Neve 1073 all the way. Thanks for the video!

[@charliekey2979]

I knew it was #2, the 1073 has a distinct character!

[@slavesforging5361]

Nicely done. Preamp 1 seems thicker on the vocals, most notably the male vocals. preamp 2 would probably sit better in a dense mix for vocals as it was a bit clearer. But preamp 1 would be better for a light mix, like a singer with a piano, or a singer with a guitar. it was a bit difficult to tell on the female vocals, as the key notes i decided to focus in on were sung differently on her two takes. but also she seemed to enjoy singing into preamp 2 more, which is probably where those differences came from. and it's always worth mentioning which gear brings out the better performance! in her case, preamp 2. Preamp 1's electric guitar sounded absolutely killer. nice and thick without being over top, making it still easy to use in a mix. Preamp 2's electric got way to thick for my taste and style. admittedly it sounded great, but not for me. and i think it's usage would be very niche because of the intense thickness. I thought preamp 2 sounded just a bit flat on the acoustic guitar, and would need some eq or compression to 'fix' it. but preamp 1's acoustic sound was quite perfect. certainly eq and compression wouldn't hurt it, but it didn't need correction. that being said, preamp 2's sound being flatter would once again fit into a dense mix a bit easier. whereas preamp 1 would fill out a simple mix of vocals and guitar, or vocals and piano type thing better. Both are obviously great mic pre's. but for my style and taste, i'll try out the 610 first. I generally love the thickest useable tone for vocals.

[@jonnomaker]

Like midi510 said the microphone. Owner of both here. The 610 sounds thin by comparison with just about every microphone that's thin sounding but when you throw a big sounding mic on the Neve 1073 design for some sources it can be overwhelming and the 610 just perfect and vs vs. Also the input impedance on the 610 loves old ribbon mics. I really started getting a lot of use out of the 610 after I discovered that for myself.

[@alecburngo8201]

Offcourse the Neve preamp! Great comparison

[@manuelg9196]

Listening through my studio NS10’s the UA610 was much Warmer, Creamy, Easy to listen to. The 1073 was Punchy, Present, kinda harsh but in a good way?

[@GorillaTonstudio]

true

[@fawdian]

Damn i knew it. Preamp 2 was so round musical deep and gentle where as UA was just so harsh and rough at so many points

[@GeoffPeterson33]

I liked the 1073 here in terms of preparing the signal for mixing. It came across a little more compressed than the 610 and a much fuller sound, that means less eq and compression for me later! Although the 610 would be nice if you wanted a very natural bright sound with plenty of transient information coming through. Imaging sounded similar on both as well

[@Blueberrythegreat]

You didn’t split the mic signal, making this whole test useless you have to use the same exact signal to the same exact preamp to do any kind of comparison

[@ArneHenrik]

They are both killer pre's...I'd love to have them both!! If I had to choose, I'd go for Neve.

[@S1imL10]

Very nice video, thx. For Vocals I prefered the 610. For all guitars the Neve would be my choice.

[@arinrobinson]

Awesome comparison! The fact that you used a beat up sm58 is a great illustration idea. I know I can trust my ears now because I felt that number 1 was the 610. That preamp is an easy to the ear product. Not to say it sounds better but for me it is more appealing because the low end and presence aren't as boomy. Those highs and lows sit in there in a pleasant way.

[@alexreis4965]

Would love to hear the comparison in a mix. Pre #2 sounds somewhat fuller, surely busier on the bottom end, but my guts tell me Preamp #1 sits better on a mix

[@Blaculo]

Thanks. On vocals, I preferred the 2-610. On acoustic, both sounded good. On electric guitar, the Neve was much smoother and pleasing to the ear especially with distortion.

[@VintiqueSound]

This is an awesome shootout! Thanks :)

[@fredmanteghian5913]

I preferred #1. #2 sounded like it had a bit more gain but if it didn't, it seemed to emphasis mouth sounds of both vocalists more. It was more "intimate" but not in a good way. The decision on which I preferred for vocalists was #1. With the acoustic guitar, #2 sounded phasier and did not capture the sound of acoustic guitar nearly as well as #1 did. With the electric guitars, I had no preference. I have a UA 610 Mk 2 which is different than an UA 610 in the demo, but if I can get to 90% of the same sound as was done in this demo, I'll be happy. Nice job overall - thank you!

[@Its_Cleezy_Hoee]

The neve is just a lil brighter, im sure a good enginner can edit the vocals through the 610 to sound equal to. Plus the fact that you can set the tube a certain way to make it brighter is amazing. You have options which is what would win me over.

[@mr.soundguy5621]

The fact that you can make that sm58 sound that good really goes to show preamp is king; THEN Digital conversion. Granted they are all important id choose a good preamp any day; digital converters were not always as good as they are but with a good preamp a lot of information always comes through and that characteristic is unbeatable.

[@truecuckoo]

Amp2 sounded really fitting for male vocals.

[@truecuckoo]

***** Hey :) I'm looking for a nice preamp for my voice actually. I just had a revelation with a very old mic preamp. I need to find a beautiful and musical preamp, and I was impressed by the Neve in this demo.

[@sasuke671]

I'm having trouble understanding the markings on the neve preamp. The numbers seem to be everywhere, and what does "off" mean? Awesome vid btw!

[@napalmhardcore]

The UA sounded a bit compressed. I'm curious to know whether the tube drive was at max. If so, I'd personally have backed it off a bit.

[@keithrowe1007]

Interesting choice using a 58. I would rather have a hot pokey rod in my eye than use a 58 for anything other than a boat anchor. But anyway, it did its job. I thought #1 was, I think the word I'm looking for is 'cleaner,' which I liked, though it was only apparent to me with the stuff that had some bottom end to it. I suppose that wee bit of dirt is a selling point on the 1073? Thanks for sharing. Also, I'm personally not a fan of preamps that have no hi pass, or adjustable impedance. I know millions of records have been sold without them, but I figure it should be standard, ESPECIALLY when one is paying $500-1000 a channel.

[@djscorpie]

Thank you very much for your time

[@briancroes3418]

Both have parameter settings that can be adjusted for different tonal qualities so it may be difficult to say which one sounds better.

[@sorinambarus1630]

In my opinion the UAD preamp is more suitable for male vocals, it has that air feeling. The Neve preamp handles better the transients and it sounds cleaner overall, especially in the higher frequencies area. The Neve is more versatile in my opinion and the UAD works better in particular situations like an intimate feel for vocals.

[@MarkVO]

The 610 rounds off the highs and eliminates some harshness. I really like that and it makes the electric guitar easier to listen to

[@videovandal]

Neve wins everytime

[@jesse_cole]

That "harshness" you guys keep talking about down below with the Neve is called clarity. You're actually hearing frequencies that are obscured by the 610. You can always trim back some of those frequencies in the mix if things aren't sounding smooth enough, but trying to "add" frequencies that the source didn't give you to begin with can be a futile exercise... you'll only be faking it, and it will never sound quite as good in the mix.

[@caminglis53]

Jesse Cole I totally agree but I would also add that in reality when going in to a 1073 pre and then recording via some industry standard a.d converters the neve is less harsh than, really everything out there! I think it’s as you’ve said, the other stuff - in this case a very good yet compromised sound of the (610) changes the full frequency response, it has an unbalanced result on the overall sound... And this results in the instrument being hidden in the mix to much. And adding stuff later then becomes the problem as you’ve pointed out.

[@shaft9000]

You may want to try it again with a change to the 610. A 58 sounds stronger and more detailed at 2K ohm; 400 is less than a 1/3 of what it should be getting in order to be sounding closer to the 1073. Transistors removed most impedance concerns in later equipment, but tube amplifiers can be even more sensitive about impedance than they are to input level.

[@ray1ashwin]

i think UA sounded really good on male vocals.

[@dannyharvey8470]

yay! I had it right! my ears must be getting better! Both good pres tho. Number 1 had a bit more mids, slightly too much for my taste, probably better for heavy guitars to make them cut. Number 2, still middy, but just sang IMHO, kind of 3d too, OMG especially on vocals and acoustic guitar!

[@bradlii]

Both are excellent quality preamps, to be sure. What I question is both the impedance settings and the gain structure settings of each pre. Perhaps, the impedance doesn't matter so much here, as they're probably only off by 100ohms of anything, and the 58 probably operates fine on a lower impedance. However, the Neve's gain structure appears to be pushing the input transformer significantly more and pulling it back using the output knob (and/or transformer), and this will definitely alter the amount of harmonic distortion (color, perceived width) in this comparison. This is my guess, anyway, having had experience with many Neve channels. I felt the 610 felt more forward and less colored, but I wonder if these comparisons could've been any closer with adjusted settings (and more carefully aligned gain structures). Just thoughts! Cheers!

[@kedavis]

My ears actually heard the opposite yrlk. I felt the 610 was more colored and less forward than the Neve. It's interesting how we perceive sound.

[@bradlii]

+Karl Davis It's so interesting, because I just listened in my car again, and I felt the same. #2, to me, was wider and slightly more colored; whereas, I felt like #1 was still more natural sounding. I couldn't really tell which sounded more forward to me this time-in the car, but it's interesting that my results are the same. I suppose it doesn't matter: a good preamp is certainly not the make or break part of the signal path for me. I think the source and mics are far more important, and both of these preamps are great.

[@bradlii]

+yrlk one thing I do notice (if the beginning photo is accurate) is that the Neve preamp output transformer seems significantly more dialed back than the UA. This could also be contributing to the coloration I hear. Just an observation.

[@mariaulfah2813]

I like both. But i like touching 610 it looks beautiful. Haha

[@shardsrecordingstudio-matt2247]

The UA was bizarrely mid forward. I picked the Neve each time but thought it was the UA (which I own and am familiar with and to me sends sources to the the back with air and less low mids). I wonder what the relationship of each preamp's nominal input impedance to the MIC's output impedance is. Looks like I'll have to have a Neve round out the arsenal!

[@JesseBroman]

ua on male vocals, neve female, ua acoustic, neve electric.

[@evangofficial94]

🔥💯

[@MKunstmann]

Good call!

[@slavesforging5361]

i tend to agree. though i listened to this on desktop speakers not my monitors so...

[@tiagoagfaria]

Really like the sound of the 610...

[@Seranrod]

For me, Neve totally wins this. Incredible. The difference was clear in the male voice and guitars. Thank you. Very nice comparison.

[@JeffreyMiddelveld]

Too bad the vocals were recorded by a SM58, but since all of the matches were recorded by the same microphone and presets.. my conclusion is that the Neve has a nice warm low-end to it, with a really nice transparant high frequency range. I immediately picked #2 after the first line of the male vocalist. Nothing beats a nice tenor sound. I recorded a male vocalist from my class last year and the sound of his voice has such a nice low-end and bright top end, it's just so much fun to mix and experiment with different kinds of pre amps to get the nicest results. Too bad I don't have a Neve pre amp over here, hahah. Thanks for sharing!

[@guitaral]

Nice, useful comparison video. I liked the Neve for everything, except the male vocal. Guitar demonstrations should have switched quicker - clean sound preamp 1, to clean sound preamp 2 etc.

[@D40Oz1]

wowww, i honestly thought the second pre was the UA lol cause of the tube supposed to warm it up.... crazy!

[@thestreetdisciple3955]

Me tooo

[@orangemaniabrother2232]

It does, and it did, it was smoother than the Neve

[@AnthonyMartinsRock]

Hmm.. not mentioning the mic choice here as the 58 is a classic live and stage mic. Though having owned this pre in both solo and 2U version, I would say that this comparison is misleading. The ua unit can be made to sound clean or warm depending on the balance of your 3! Stages of gain! Gain, level and output each play a roll. It is possible in that instance to make both the 73 and 610 sound the complete opposite and then back again with settings.

[@JMLRecording]

woulda loved to see this comparison on a real studio mic, what these units were designed for

[@Poom290827]

No.1 is best for my ear brighter sound No. great dark tone they both amazing anyway ☝️👍👍

[@demanel2978]

NEVE sonido abierto y natural, el mismo que facusrite en la serie ISA, diseñados por el mago del sonido Ruper Neve

[@NaceK84]

seriously #1 : that's one of the best demos/comparisons I've seen! seriously #2 : is there something that can actually EVEN touch the '73???? (maybe chandler??) thank you for this video anyway shnobel!!

[@CandymanJrMint]

which chandler pre?

[@NaceK84]

limited tg2 500 series

[@NaceK84]

(which is btw more expensive)

[@durnsadane]

Such a cool video! I think i like the Neve best on most.

[@InternationalBassStation]

Before I see the results, I suspect that #2 is a neve. #2 is so open on the bottom and the top end. I did quite like #1 though, maybe preferred it's midrange gusto. I'd use #2 for close mixed drums/guitar, and #1 on lead tracks (vox/solos/rooms).

[@InternationalBassStation]

Yay! I was right!

[@shnobeltone]

David Spidel good guess :)

[@AnthonyDiniMusic]

DPA blows 610 out of the water, especially on vocals and heavy guitars. Thanks for this shootout.

[@shnobeltone]

No Problem

[@canalmeu8865]

@@shnobeltone I liked B, but what is uad and neve?