Topping E4x4 Pre vs. Presonus Studio 1810c: mic preamps comparison

[Lorence Adriani]

Hi to all!
Since I didn't found a specific topic about the E4x4 model, I wanted to open this new thread.
I'll start saying I am a selftaught acoustic fingerstyle guitarist. I am not a technician nor a sound engineer. All I know comes from experience, practice and self-study.
Coming from a very old (but still perfectly working) TC-Electronics Konnekt 24D audio interface, I recently decided to buy a new audio interface with 4 microphone/line/inst inputs, since I want to use 3 microphones + the line from the pickup system of my acoustic guitar (Maton APMic). I need to record only acoustic guitar. Nothing else.
In the last weeks I had the chance to test a Presonus 1810C interface and I have to say it sounded extremely good to my ears, much better than my old audio interface. But surprisingly I found the Presonus control panel software (Universal Control) to be graphically ugly, unintuitive and too functions-basic, especially if compared to other brands interfaces control panel softwares (ie. Focusrite, Motu, Audient, Arturia, etc.). Even my 18 y.o. Konnekt 24D has a more complete and easy-to-use control panel software...
For this reason, I looked at something else on the market and especially after watching Julian Krause's review of the Topping E2x2 audio interface, I felt convinced to buy the Topping E4x4 Pre model, which seems to have what I need.
But not all that shines is gold...
As soon as I received my new interface, I mmediately wanted to test it. The control panel software is very easy and graphically intuitive. All the functions I need (and even more) are right in front of me and I don't need to read a manual to understand how to use it.
Line outputs and headphone outputs sound very good. With my AKG K702 I can reach volume levels I never reached before.
But then I tested the mic preamps with two of my microphones (Rode NT2A and Rode NT5). And all I can say is that I am a bit disappointed.
The Presonus 1810c's pres sounded open, clear, defined, but also very smooth. Mixing and mastering clips recorded with it was easy, since every record sounded almost immediately perfect, requiring very little corrections.
On the other part, instead, the Topping E4x4's pres sound closed, thin, less dynamic and confused especially in the middle frequencies area. Mixing and mastering require a much bigger effort, since I have to make many more corrections and the final result doesn't get any closer to the sound quality I was able to get from the Presonus 1810c with a lot less work.
In less words, the sound I get from E4x4's microphone preamps is ugly for my ears and I struggle to make me like it.
In all honesty I didn't expect to be able to hear this very markable difference.
I tried to understand why, but I still can't find a specific answer.
These are the mic preamps specs of the 2 interfaces:

	Topping E4x4 Pre	Presonus Studio 1810c
Microphone Preamp Dynamic Range	115 dB (A-Weighted)	110 dB (A-Weighted, Minimum Gain)
Microphone Preamp Equivalent Input Noise	-130,5 dBu (A-Weighted, 150Ω)	-128 dBu (A-Weighted, 20 kHz BW, Rs=150Ω, Maximum Gain)
Microphone Preamp Gain Control Range	58 dB (+ 20 dB of digital gain)	80 dB
Microphone Preamp Input Impedance	1.5 kΩ	1.4 kΩ
Microphone Preamp Maximum Input Level	+8,6 dBu	+16 dBu, Minimum Gain
Microphone Preamp Total Harmonic Distortion	0,0003%	0,005% (1 kHz, 0dBu, Unity Gain)

Looking at the values, the E4x4 seems to "win" in all aspects: it has more dynamic range, less noise, less harmonic distortion... except for the Gain Control Range, where the 1810c offer a very high value of 80 db of available gain. Could just be this 22db difference of gain to cause my microphones to sound so differently?
I don't put into this comparison the ADC/DAC specs, since again Topping's has better values on the paper and I want to believe those declared specs can be trusted.

Another thing.
Using a multimeter I measured the voltage coming out of the E4x4 preamps and it's about 46,7V, so slightly below the 48V target. Unfortunately I didn't think to make this same measurement when I had the Presonus 1810c at hand, so I can't make a comparison now. But do you think this slightly weak phantom power might be the cause of my microphones sounding worse to my ears?

In general, what are your toughts about these two audio interfaces's microphone preamps?
I'm seriously considering to return the Topping E4x4 and try something else like the Audient ID44 Mkii or simply go back to the Presonus 1810c which had a sound I immediately liked.
Any other suggestions is highly appreciated.

 

[AnalogSteph]

This thread should go here - try badgering a mod to have it moved.

Some things I would check/try:
Make sure you are not getting a mix of direct monitor audio and audio that has gone through A/D and D/A for some reason, 'cause that tends to sound really wonky. Loopback could get you in trouble here. Not sure what sort of ASIO devices the Topping offers and whether there is any choice (e.g. a mixer output device vs. some inputs only).
Mute everything in Topping Control and then unmute only those things you absolutely need to work one by one.
Turn down headphone volume.
Turn off monitoring on all inputs.

 

[Lorence Adriani]

Thank you so much, I'm sorry, I noticed I posted this thread in the wrong section only when it was too late.
I hope some moderator can move it to the right one.

Regarding your suggestions, I can tell you that I recorded using Cubase and selecting the specific input channels where my microphones were connected to.
I used direct monitoring only to properly set the gain level inputs, but then I turned it off while recording.
At this point I am afraid it's just how Topping's preamps sound, or maybe it's just an unlucky combination of Topping's preamps and my specific microphones.. who knows.
I will do another recording test in the next days, just to be sure.

BTW, what do you think about the mic preamps specs I wrote in my previous post?
And what about phantom power real voltage output?

Any other suggestion is really appreciated.

 

[DVDdoug]

But then I tested the mic preamps with two of my microphones (Rode NT2A and Rode NT5). And all I can say is that I am a bit disappointed.

Could just be this 22db difference of gain to cause my microphones to sound so differently?

No. Not unless one of them is clipping (saturating/distorting). Of course it will sound different if you are listening at a different volume. People will often hear all kinds of differences when in reality there is just a difference in volume. And in fact, our ear's "frequency response" changes with volume and if the volume is significantly louder, of course we can hear more little details.

Let's start with this:
With electronics, there are only 3 characteristics that determine "sound quality". Noise, distortion, and frequency response.* (With microphones, speakers, and room acoustics, things are more complicated.) Usually frequency response and distortion are better than human hearing unless something is over-driven into clipping. With an interface, it should usually the analog-to-digital converter that clips first and it should clip at exactly 0dBFS. Or some tube preamps are designed to have slight "pleasing" distortion and most guitar amps are designed to distort, and they are designed to soft-clip "sound good" when overdriven into "saturation".

So the main concern is noise (hum, hiss, or whine in the background). All active electronics generate noise and sometimes it's audible. Whether it's audible or not depends on a lot of factors, the gain, the sensitivity of the speakers/headphones, how close you are to the speakers, other acoustic noise in the room, etc.

The gain amplifies the signal and noise together so although turning-up the gain makes the noise more noticeable, the signal-to-noise ratio is NOT worse so in the end it all balances-out and there's no difference. Equivalent Input Nose properly takes that into account, specifying the noise before amplification.

When recording with a microphone, acoustic room noise is usually the biggest challenge, especially for most of us who don't have soundproof studio.

Oh... With dynamic mics the input impedance can change the frequency response. Not a problem with condensers. And if you have an omnidirectional mic it will pick-up noise form all directions and a figure-8 mic will pick-up noise from two directions. And since the signal normally only comes from one direction, that hurts your signal-to-noise ratio.

I measured the voltage coming out of the E4x4 preamps and it's about 46,7V, so slightly below the 48V target.

That shouldn't be a problem. Everything has tolerances... Most microphone manufacturers don't publish any tolerances but I've sometimes seen things like "24-48V".

And... Nobody is going to listen to your final production and say, "you used the wrong preamp" or "you used the wrong interface".

* Amir combines noise and distortion as SINAD.

 

[Lorence Adriani]

Thank you so much for your detailed response full of interesting food for thought.

The raw untouched recording files made with Topping's interface have more or less the same volume of those made with Presonus 1810c.
Before recording, I adjusted the mic input gain at a level where the volume while I was playing guitar didn't exceed peaks of ~-10dB, this on both interfaces.

Yesterday I asked a few friends (who are not into music/audio stuff) to tell me which file they think it sounds better in a A/B blind test and all of them chose the Presonus file, saying it sounds more open, detailed and musical, while the other file (Topping) sounds closed and confused.

 

[Lorence Adriani]

Just got the chance to get back the Presonus 1810c to do a direct comparison with the Topping E4x4 Pre.

The voltage coming out of the 1810c's mic preamp inputs is as above:
- channel 1 48,5V
- channel 2 48,5V
- channel 3 48,6V
- channel 4 48,6V

So it's slightly higher than Topping.

I quickly connected my microphones to the first two mic inputs and using the direct monitoring function I can immediately say the sound is richer and smoother.
Especially the sibilants and the high frequencies are not enhanched and disturbing like on the Topping.
On the Rode NT2A mic I have an high-pass filter switch. Setting it at 80hz gives a beautifull sound on the Presonus, while on the Topping it makes it sound like almost all the low frequencies are cutted out.
So the frequency response of the same mic changes drastically.

Another thing I noticed is that adjusting both interfaces to get the same volume, on the Topping you can hear a lot more of the background noises (ie. laptop's cpu fan, etc.) while on the Presonus almost all of the background noises are not present.

It really seems like the same microphone works in a completely different way, in favour of the Presonus interface (in my opinion).

Tomorrow I'll visit a friend's recording studio and we'll do some recording tests with both interfaces at the same time (one connected to a pc and the other to another pc), both with the same microphone (a Rode M5 for each interface) and after that I will update this thread.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Good idea. This is a weird one for sure. I have no idea what would cause such a drastic difference under normal circumstances, unless the Topping is broken or somehow badly misconfigured.

 

[Lorence Adriani]

Here I am, after the tests in my friend's recording studio.
As I wrote in my previous post, we tested both interfaces at the same time. Each one was plugged into a different computer.
We connected a pair of Rode M5 microphones, each one for each interface.
Both microphones were placed almost in the same position, one very close to the other and both at the same height and at the same distance from the 12th fret of the guitar.
There was just a slight unavoidable difference of a few cms in orizontal position, as you can imagine.
Topping's mic input knob was set at almost 12:00, while Presonus's mic input knob was set at about 2:00.
My friend played some different random things, just to test the mic preamps response to different styles of playing.
Guitar used was a Cole Clark guitar with almost new strings.

This is a link to both raw-untouched 24bit 48khz wav files, so you can have a listen and judge by yourself:
Topping E4x4 Pre vs. Presonus Studio 1810C

Let me know you thoughts.

After the test I and my friend both agreed with the fact that the Presonus sounds better: more open and musical and more precise in the middle frequencies.
We analyzed both files on iZotope RX 11 Advanced software and it seems like the Presonus have been able to record more informations along the entire frequency spectrum.

 

[AnalogSteph]

For starters, you should probably be a bit more careful with your level settings if that's "raw and untouched". The Presonus track peaks at 1.000000 with a true peak of 1.147290 (+1.19 dBTP), the Topping a bit lower but still reaches +0.18 dBTP. Even in spoken word applications it is common to go for about a -6 dBFS peak, on the studio recording side it should probably be more like -12. It's not like you don't have the ADC dynamic range for it. Had a look at the FFT of quiet spots in Audacity, and right now your recording is just about maxing out 16 bits at best (~95 dB).

I threw both files into Foobar2000, ReplayGain scanned them as usual (the Topping is about 0.4 dB quieter otherwise) and fired up the ABX comparator. I do hear a small difference, the Presonus seems marginally rounder in tone (and a bit louder still despite RG), but that's hardly night and day like you were making it sound. If it diminishes at 96 kHz, the ADC digital filter may be involved, though I don't think Topping uses the low latency option... the "regular" AK4621 filter is quite good.

It may be interesting to feed the same signal into both interfaces using a splitter cable (at input gains exactly like your recording, backing off on source volume as needed), followed by comparison in DeltaWave. (Imagine the difference mostly boils down to minor frequency response differences that would be easily compensated for with PEQ.) Having one of those cables and a mixer with mic inputs would also enable a single-mic comparison to rule out mic placement as a factor.