RNP vs. DMP3

[participant]

Okay... still a few places w/fret buzz & small timing issues... but these files are much better than yesterday's

DMP3 vs. RNP

You may be surprised, tubedude

[tubedude]

I will tell you, without even listening, that I can NOT hear a difference between preamps when the signal is degraded via any or all of the following:
crappy source
Crappy radio shack omni mic in a bad room
crappy cables
crappy compression and other devices
crappy conversion (very important)
and then being converted into MP3 or some other crappy format.
Tell me what the chain is you have going and then I'll take a lsiten and see if I can hear it. My money is, if you ahve a great chain start to finish and its not an MP3, that the RNP takes it without a problem, especially on multi layered tracks.
Peace.

[crawdad]

I A/B'd these two clips several times and heard a couple of big differences. While both sound good and very usable, I definitely prefer the RNP take. There are two things I noticed. First, the DMP3 track has more lower midrange that lends a bit of boxiness to the guitar sound. The RNP is more transparent to me in those low mids. Second, the highs on the RNP seemed to be also more transparent--cleaner--less harsh--whatever you want to call it.

At first, they sounded basically the same, and I was thinking--I'll just get a DMP3 and save myself some money. Then, I went back and did some critical listening to both pres. Thats when I noticed the differences. I can really see how the mids from the DMP3 could build up after recording a bunch of tracks--and how the RNC might make that buildup less noticeable.

It was a good lesson. Thanks for posting these. Of course, if you tell me you lied and reversed these two, I'm buying the DMP3 tomorrow!

[Middleman]

Crawdad, I have the DMP3 and you are right, the boxiness does build up on multiple tracks and you have to compensate for it with EQ.

I agree with your analysis of the files. There is a clarity on the high end which results in more overtones making it to the tracks with the RNP.

Thanks participant, simple and well done analysis. What was the mic?

........Never mind, I see that it was an Oktava..

[participant]

Originally posted by tubedude
I will tell you, without even listening, that I can NOT hear a difference between preamps when the signal is degraded via any or all of the following:

crappy source
crappy cables

Possible; the "source" would be my poor playing ...in a sound treated room. Cables? Eh... I'm sure I could get/use some better ones.

Crappy radio shack omni mic in a bad room
crappy compression and other devices

Nope; Oktava mc012's x/y stereo. No compression and no FX.

crappy conversion (very important)
and then being converted into MP3 or some other crappy format.

It's in crappy variable bit rate format, with the Lame encoder engine.

Tell me what the chain is you have going and then I'll take a lsiten and see if I can hear it. My money is, if you ahve a great chain start to finish and its not an MP3, that the RNP takes it without a problem, especially on multi layered tracks

Chain is listed at the NWR site... but again:

Acoustic Guitar-->mc012 stereo x/y-->Preamp-->Delta1010-->Cubase VST/32 5.0 32-bit (True Tape)

[A1A2]

First off, thanks to participant for the test.

But, after playing the first 5 secs of each take many times, I think the performances are inconsistent enough to make quite some sonic differences, especially how hard he picks on each take.

But, if that wasn't the issue, yeah, RNP does sound better to my taste.

AL

[participant]

Originally posted by A1A2
First off, thanks to participant for the test.

But, after playing the first 5 secs of each take many times, I think the performances are inconsistent enough to make quite some sonic differences, especially how hard he picks on each take

You're right about that... acoustic guitar is not my forte Apologies for the lack of fluidity on the thing... I'm using a hard pick... couldn't find the softer (thin) pick...

[JuSumPilgrim]

Anybody who is not hearing very big and actually nicely illustrated differences (good job Participant) between these two preamps should probably get new monitors. I only listened to 2 bars of the arpeggiation on each track and already heard a huge difference in articulation and tonality right away.
The RNP had much more of the sound you would ultimately want. Aside from the obviously more transparent and MUCH more linear sound (no frequency really jumps out at you) the RNP doesnt have the almost phased slow transient quality that the DMP3 has. Probably the biggest difference was in that phasing which blurs the dynamic movment, sense of space and focus of the frequency response. The DMP3 sounded more one dimensional.
The DMP3 had a pronounced ring everytime the high note of the arpeggiation was hit and as was said ...a definite boxiness and hyped low mid. EQ would only add to the DMP3's problems. The RNP's ring on the same note was not pronounced ...throughout the track. The RNP sounded like it was basically good to go by comparison.
The DMP3's phasing would just add up exponentially when you put the tracks togeather and getting any kind of seriously defined mix would be that much harder, if not impossible.
I didnt hear the extended top end, the RNP is famous for. Im assuming that was lost in the mp3 conversion.

[SLuiCe]

Originally posted by JuSumPilgrim
Anybody who is not hearing very big and actually nicely illustrated differences (good job Participant) between these two preamps should probably get new monitors. I only listened to 2 bars of the arpeggiation on each track and already heard a huge difference in articulation and tonality.

ditto...it was immediately noticable on Studiophiles. I preferred the RNP for its warmth in this particular application. (I'm assuming it's the same two trax u put up in the clinic...)

[tubedude]

Looks like I dont even NEED to listen, judging by everyones comments. Just as I thought. Its a killer piece of gear.

[Shakuan]

Props to participant!

... now I know I'm not the worst guitar player on here... hehe jk
gj

i just think it sucks that the RNP is a box. doesnt look pretty in a rack

[christiaan]

Originally posted by Shakuan
i just think it sucks that the RNP is a box. doesnt look pretty in a rack

Well, it would have made the RNP more expensive. And we don't want that. But I'm sure Funky Logic will come with a good looking solution.

[participant]

Originally posted by Shakuan
Props to participant!

... now I know I'm not the worst guitar player on here... hehe jk
gj



i just think it sucks that the RNP is a box

And a tiny box at that...

I'm surprised nobody wants to comment on the only advantage the DMP3 seems to have-- lower noise. It's pretty obvious, even to my ears, that the RNP is a bit noisier. It's possible I could have mic'ed closer, and used 6db less gain--lowering the noise floor by 6db--but it's also possible that 1) RNP may not be perfect for high-gain applications 2) my performances sucked even more than we thought

[participant]

Originally posted by SLuiCe
(I'm assuming it's the same two trax u put up in the clinic...)

No... believe it or not, I put up an even newer set of abortions-- er-- tracks

Yo... guess I need to practice w/an acoustic a helluva lot more The action just kills my left hand...

[Middleman]

Would like to hear the VTB-1 performance against these two. Any chance you have one of these around?

Also would the fact that you used two different gain levels affect the results at all?

[participant]

Originally posted by Middleman
Would like to hear the VTB-1 performance against these two. Any chance you have one of these around?

Actually, yes... but just one... a single channel test (something like vox) is possible.

Also would the fact that you used two different gain levels affect the results at all?

Those were the optimal gain settings for x/y micing in that room. Those with RNP know that it's got coarse gain steps... (6db) and if 36db is too quiet and 42db clips... you have to compromise--move closer/further from the mics, etc.

The DMP3 was easy to set, in comparison. Apparently, the RNP's noise floor isn't going to get in the way in most recording applications (according to FMR)... hope it's true.

[Middleman]

So were the distances from the source and ultimate track recording volumes the same for the two tests? Sorry to be an inquest but just want to know if you feel that there were limited variables between the two tests. The sound difference is dramatic.

[participant]

Originally posted by Middleman
So where the distances from the source and ultimate track recording volumes the same for the two tests? Sorry to be an inquest but just want to know if you feel that there were limited variables between the two tests. The sound difference is dramatic.

Actually, the DMP3 was mic'ed 2" closer, but that's it (had to back off 2" for RNP because of clipping concerns). No compression, FX, eq... frankly, I don't see how 2" could create the dramatic difference described by all.

The difference I noticed was a slight smeariness in the DMP3 track; the RNP track seemed to have a "wholeness" of sound; much better focus.

[chessrock]

Originally posted by participant
Actually, the DMP3 was mic'ed 2" closer, but that's it (had to back off 2" for RNP because of clipping concerns). No compression, FX, eq... frankly, I don't see how 2" could create the dramatic difference described by all.

It will generally make a lot more difference than the choice of preamp. 2" is an awful lot of difference, and I'm afraid it doesn't make for much of a valid comparison.

[SLuiCe]

I gotta agree with that.

But I'd still probably by an FMR product unheard if I had the budget for it. I'm pretty content with the VTB-1s at the moment.

[ambi]

yea im listening on computer satalite speakers, not even monitors, and i heard those differences imediatly. The boxy mids and harsh highs. Although to be honestly im not certain i love either of the preamps. But i guess thats an unfair statement considering i've never used them. But i would go with the RNP based on that recording.

[participant]

Originally posted by chessrock
It will generally make a lot more difference than the choice of preamp. 2" is an awful lot of difference, and I'm afraid it doesn't make for much of a valid comparison.

If the difference between 14" and 16" is that big of a deal, than I don't see why choice of preamp matters that much, frankly.

guitar players are going to move around some... certainly 2" (when out more than 1') isn't going to change much.

If so, whatever ... not about to get into a hairsplitting match.

[JuSumPilgrim]

Even with a 2" dif in placement you wouldnt get the phased smeared quality if the preamp didnt do that in general. The DMP3 track sounded middy and brighter (in an uneven way) I guess the 2" dif in placement is partly why.

[Middleman]

Even with a 2" dif in placement you wouldnt get the phased smeared quality if the preamp didnt do that in general. The DMP3 track sounded middy and brighter (in an uneven way) I guess the 2" dif in placement is partly why.

I agree and there may be a proximity affect kicking in here too. Although the sound is similar to my DMP3 it seemed more undefined in the example file.

I am definitely going to pick up the RNP because it has the high end that I know the DMP3 does not quite capture. That sparkley unwavering sound on the guitar notes.

[crawdad]

I changed my mind. The DMP3 sounds much better, so why don't you send me that piece of crap RNP as an early Christmas present?

Really, 2" does make a difference. You should have kept the exact same spacing and mic placement and done your adjustments to match with the DMP3.

Even so, My ears are telling me the RNP is the better pre, 2' or not.