Interesting what I learned about the DMP-3

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessrock
  • Start date Start date
C

chessrock

Banned
Hey guys,

Just thought I'd let you know . . .

I popped the hood on my DMP-3 this afternoon. Just out of curiosity.

Anyway, I was tying to find out what kind of opamp chip it uses. What I found out was somewhat surprizing.

The opamp chip utilized in the dmp-3 is the Burr-brown INA163.

For those of you who undertand the significance of this revelation, then I assume you know why this is good news.

For those of you who haven't the slightest idea what I'm talking about . . . let's just say there's reason to be encouraged. You've probably heard from a few sources that the dmp3 is a decent 2-channel mic pre to be had on the cheap. You probably didn't know that it employs a world-class design with great components that very easily makes it the creme' dala' creme' of inexpensive mic pres.

Look, I've been toting the virtues of this mic pre for a while now. At the time, I had nothing to go by other than the fact that I liked the final results it produced.

Now, I have some support as to why I've liked it so much for all this time.

I remember comparing it exhaustively to the Grace Design, and wondering, in frustration, why I wasn't able to detect a significant difference . . .

. . . and now, I pretty much know why.

I wans't haluscinating on this one.

Look, forget the RNP. Forget the Grace design, Sytek, or anything else other than the Great River. The pecking order of budget mic pres should go as follows:

1) Mackie -- doesn't suck
2) DMP3 -- pretty good.
3) Great River -- next step up.

RNP -- probably about as good as the DMP3, but more than twice the price.

And that's the party line I'm sticking to. If you think you know of something under $1000 that "beats the pants off the dmp3," then all I have to ask you is: "Show me."

Give me concrete examples of where you've used the dmp3 . . . what context . . . and how you went about comparing it to your other "under-$1000" mic pre . . . and how you came about the results . . . and please share them with the rest of us.

In other words . . . what I'm saying is the dmp3 is the real RNP. Nothing else needs to be said.

Good luck,

Chess
 
Let me start by saying that I have not used either the grace 101 or dmp3.

I thought the grace design preamps use a monolithic design with no op amps and no capacitors in the signal path. The also use a rotary switch and not potentiometers for gain control.

Am I right in understanding that in contrast a DMP3 uses opamps, capacitors and potentiometers?

I am not saying a dmp3 sounds worse than a grace pre. But I am not sure you can say that the components and design are equal quality (is that what you were saying?).
 
The grace desing is about as descrete as the motherboard on my AMD athlon.


Both the Grace and the DMP3 utilize the exact same opamp chip . . . the surrounding circuitry isn't overly dis-similar . . . and neither is the wall-wart power supply they both utilize.

The major difference is the name / branding power . . . and the psychological perception that one holds as a quality brand.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean that they are lying when they say the grace 101 uses the same transimpedance amplifier architecture as the more expensive models? That is fraud!

Here is what they say about the design of their 201 and 801 models.
http://www.gracedesign.com/support/tech3.pdf

Maybe I am confused about what they are saying in their design paper.

ps what about the capacitors and potentiometers?
 
what about the capacitors and potentiometers?
Click to expand...

Call me paranoid, but potentiometers . . . capacitors . . . flex capcitors (which is what makes time travel possible, by the way :D ).

Mostly a bunch of marketing gobledy-gook, for the most part. Geeks just like us are visiting techie boards (bbs's a lot like this one) and making these for themselves in their garages/basements using radio shack (digikey?) parts.

Just try them both and compare the results for yourself. Be sure to do it double-blindfold . . . and share the results.
 
I have no problem with you saying that the dmp3 sounds as good as a Grace 101. I have not heard either pre and would not be surprised if I did not hear much difference

Its just that in your original post you seem to imply that the quality of the components and design are equal. I am not sure is the case.

ps apologies to Grace Designs. I did misunderstand their paper
 
As far as the whole comparison thing goes . . .

all I'm saying is compare them for yourself in a controlled environment. Use some sound methodology and shield yourself rom any preconveived prejudice . . .

. . . and I'm confident you'll be very surprized how narrow the gap might be . . . if you find any gap at all, that is.

Either way, I'm sure you'll most likely conclude that you should be concerning yourself with other aspects of the recording chain . . . the microphones themselves, positioning, the crappy plugins and cheap reverb you're using, the inadequate A/D, ete. etc. etc.

. . . before you even give a fleeting thought to the very minute differences between $200 and $1,200 mic pres you might notice on an extremely good day.
 
What a minute now chessrock... Now that you know the DMP-3 has an INA163 in it, you say forget Sytek? WOW! Talk about a drastic turn in your point of view from this discovery alone!

Now I haven't even as little as seen the DMP-3 myself, and everything chessrock is saying could in fact be all that he says, but my opinion, he's given into the "IC of the week" hype too much here.

And I sure as hell have know idea how the DMP-3 compares to the DaviSound "Mic-All", but I will say it's at least on the same step as Great River and I am estatic with it.
 
Look, RE . . .


I've suspected all along this thing could play with the big boys, and my recent discovery only helps to solidify opinions I've had for quite some time anyway.

And as far as IC's go, it's been common knowlege for the last 5-6 years or so which ones have been enjoying a good reputation versus the dogs. And opinions on this matter haven't been changing at all, if you pay attention to what the right people have been saying for the past 5 years.

And similarly, if you've paid any attention to the pres I've been touting over the past couple of years, you'll also notice a similar pattern (which generally involves the dmp3 and others like it -- ie, the common thread seems to be that very same INA163 chip -- coincidence?).
 
And my point is that yes, it is common knoweledge [feed by the "right people"] just which opamps supposidly "sound" good or like dog... Case in point, take the TLO7 and 5532/5534 for example... But in the right application (which is almost never seen in the mainstrain), there's a lot less opamps out there that out-perform them than a lot of people would have you believe.
 
Anything that sounds better than a mackie is worth it.

thing is, the only pre I've heard that sounds better than a lowly mackie is the manley.
 
I'm with Chessrock on this one. In all of the shootouts I have heard and done, there was not that much difference between the RNP and the DMP3. The RNP is better on the high end above around 5K and up. In the middle frequencies 350-3K I like the sound of the DMP3 better and so it gets a thumbs up for vocals in my book. On acoustic guitar, piano or cymbals I would probably reach for the RNP.

At $199 list (some people are picking these up for around $120 at GC) the DMP3 is an extreme value for sound quality and should be on any newbies list for recording at home. It delivers a very neutral to warm sound and the transient response is well controlled and does not peak out in any noticeable range.

Stack the DMP3 next to an RNC and you have a vocal chain that can compete with the big boys. Not highly variable but mainstream solid for a lot of applications.

The only place I would differ from Chessrock is that I would put a low end Soundcraft on the list before the Mackie. I have used both and the pres are smoother in the Soundcraft.
 
Well, I have a question for Chessrock and Middleman: is it a problem that on the DMP3 I just picked up, Channel A seems to have more gain (at the same setting than Channel B? For example, if I have Channel A set at 12:00, Channel B needs to be set between 1:00 - 2:00 to have the same output. It sort of annoys me, but both channels sound the same as far as noise and response. As long as there are no quality issues, I guess I can live with it, and I hate the hassle of returning/exchanging things, but I'm still wondering...

Should I return it for another? Or is it just a quirk I should consider as giving the unit "character"?
 
Now do you think ALL dmp3's have the same high end components? Or maybe jsut some of the older ones? I've been wanting a dmp3 for a while now and this makes me want it more, but i just know i'll get it and it'll have shit components or something..

I know it doesn't sound very realistic but i always get sqrewed. And i know there has been inconsistancy in some gear in the past, where over the years there are slight changes that make big differences.
 
my DMP2 has the Burr Brown INA103KP, which is also used in the Grace 201 and 801 (not sure about the 101).....

it sounds as good or better than the Mackies for sure....its only fallback is the need for external pads with some mics, which is no biggie to me since i bought it for $79 new......
 
tdukex said:
Well, I have a question for Chessrock and Middleman: is it a problem that on the DMP3 I just picked up, Channel A seems to have more gain (at the same setting than Channel B? For example, if I have Channel A set at 12:00, Channel B needs to be set between 1:00 - 2:00 to have the same output. It sort of annoys me, but both channels sound the same as far as noise and response. As long as there are no quality issues, I guess I can live with it, and I hate the hassle of returning/exchanging things, but I'm still wondering...

Should I return it for another? Or is it just a quirk I should consider as giving the unit "character"?
Click to expand...

Are you sure that you don't have the Hi/Lo button set on the weaker channel? Or, possibly, the phase switch on the back pushed in? Maybe even the 75Hz cutoff switch? Just checking...
 
With budget mic pres, it's always been a situation where designers were either using the right component with a flawed disign . . . or a good design with a flawed component. It was fairly commonly known for a while that a professional-level outboard mic pre could be affordably made. The technology and know-how were there.

Untill Symetrix came along with the sx202, no one was using quality enough components. Unfortunately, symetrix still wound up missing the mark by a few small flaws in the design and secondary components, which were later corrected by Monte McGuire and his popular symetrix mod.

But before symetrix or any of the other manufacturers could do anything about it, the ssm2015 chip it used was discontinued . . . along with many others like it that held so much promise for the audio community (Apparently, mic pres make up a very small market for their mass-produced opamp chips that are otherwise much more widely-used in things like medical equipment).

By then, the gear companies had the design figured out, but they no longer had the quality component that was needed. Everyone and their brother got sucked in to the ssm2017 hype (due to outrageous specs on paper), and soon just about every budget mic pre on the market used it. Tragically enough, it wasn't until later that people started figuring out it had some notable flaws that weren't accurately reflected in it's spec sheets (the specs don't always tell the whole story).

The good companies had it figured soon enough, and started designing around it's flaws and came up with a good product here and there (notably Earthworks). Thank God, fate finally smiled down on us and the powers that be discontinued the 2017.

Now, the only reasonable alternatives left are either the Burr-brown INA217, THE's soon-to-be released 1510 (both drop-in replacements for the 2017) . . . or the INA163 (which, by the way, is just an audio-grade INA103). And it just so happens that the INA 163 is what they should have been using all along (and only Grace Design and a few other higher-end guys were using a version of it up to that point). It's a good one, and teamed with the right design, it delivers the goods. Only by process of elimnation have we finally gotten the components right. :D (Addition through subtraction?)

Now it appears M-audio and Rane (to a smaller extent) are the only guys to step to the plate so far and team the right component with a good design to deliver something good in the $200 and under category. And m-audio almost botched it a few years ago with a crummy design for their dmp2. Thankfully, they appear to have corrected themselves with the newer dmp3. And I think we'll be seeing a lot of improved mic pres in the next five years as lot more companies start adopting variations of a more proven schematic using the right components now that the 163 has been introduced at such a low cost.

Although who knows how long before that gets discontinued? :D
 
have you posted a comparo between the grace and the dmp3?

Listen, if you believe it so much, go to m-audio and get some sponsorship(free stuff) and post a comparison all over the web.

Make sure its double-blind.

If there really is little noticeable difference, m-audio stands to make a lot of money when people realize the value of the dmp3.
 
It's a good idea, and I've been wanting to do it with a lot of different pres, actually.

Only my plan would be to use it on a few different sessions where I'm stacking up several tracks . . . none of this listening session, 3-D or Boston pre party crap where all you hear are like 20 takes of a solo snare drum or a guitar chord picked. :D

I'd do it basically like the following:

* Track Guitar 1 to click track with mic A through pre A.
* Immediately unplug mic cord from pre A, and in to pre B.
* Track Guitar 1 again, getting as close to the exact same levels as humanly possible.

Being very clear to the talent to be as consistant as possible, not to move from their current mic position, etc. etc. And keep doing that until I've tracked one or more entire songs using nothing but the mic pre as the variable.

I've never heard that done, to date. But it would be so much more relevant, and it wouldn't be difficult at all. I could do it in one weekend.
 
You realize that opamps are not expensive components, right? The INA103KP is an $8 opamp. The INA163UA is a $5 opamp.

There's a lot more to a preamp than the opamps themselves. These components aren't selected in some kind of "good, better, best" order....it's just "what's cheap this week and works with the design?" They weren't sitting around thinking, "man, if we could just afford to put in a more expensive opamp we'd compete with grace river!"

I don't have a lot of faith in "burr brown" talk anymore....especially after I purchased an SX202 which was touted by dorsey as a usable preamp...but to me sounds like a metal tank. I'm going to toss some $9 "burr brown's" (which is actually Texas Instruments) in it for a grand total of $27 one of these days, but I'm not expecting much...exept to jack up the selling price to some sorry sucker over on RAP who thinks he's getting a 1500 preamp for 200 bucks.

P.S. I have the utmost respect for dorsey, and he never once said that the sx202 is a really good sounding preamp, that's just what all the guys like me wanted to hear!

The one good thing that did come out of my sx202 experience was a renewed appreciation for the stupid Art Tube MP, which sounds great with a little tweaking.

Slackmaster 2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top