Interesting what I learned about the DMP-3

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessrock
  • Start date Start date
Slack, you really need to read my last post on this subject. :D I addressed everything you just brought up, including how symetrix fits in to it all.

And it has nothing to do with the expense of the chips. That's never been an issue. Even the good ones have always been cheap. The issue has primarily been about their availability more than anything else.

As soon as the right components come along, the company who manufactures them either changes them or discontinues them, which has continually put monkey wrenches in the plans of the design team.
 
What, like I have time to READ threads before replying to them??? :)
 
i dont know if Burr Browns have anything to do with it, but the DMP3 just rocks.......
 
Don't know Nuthin' about no stinking op-amps. (only chips I know much about come from frito-lay) So... no design knowledge here. All I have to offer is my ears:

After messing with analog tape for years-(with plain old mixers, no outboard pres) I took the leap into digital recording a little over a year ago. I picked up a CHEAP mixer, and proceeded to try to get a good recorded sound of my very sweet Martin D-35. (which is usually the centerpiece of my singer/songwriter recordings.) But I never could seem to capture the sound of my guitar. Something thin and nasty going on. Your typical "digital is sterile and cold sounding" cliche'. A soundcard upgrade and trying various mics yielded varying degrees of success, but never got my sound.

So I started asking around on this forum, and elsewhere, about preamps. The responses varied somewhat. (surprise, surprise) But I did start to notice a common theme. People who had never used the DMP3 lumped it in with everything else in the cheap preamp world, and told me that it would likely not make much difference from my mixer pres. But, people who had actually USED the DMP3 seemed to really like it.

Since the DMP3 came closer to fitting the budget than any of the other suggestions, I ordered one. I now get tracks that are the most "analog-like" that I have gotten yet in the computer environment. And it sounds like my guitar-not some kind of proccessed, hyped in the high mids, attempted representation of my guitar. The DMP3 is less hyped sounding (something I was blaming mics for) and much Smooother sounding.

YMMV, IMHO, etc.

Tom
 
It's not like it's a new revelation. Everybody already knows that the way to do good, cheap preamps is to use Burr-Brown opamps. They cost $2.35 each if you buy them at bulk from TI. Slap some capacitors, resistors and a VU meter on it, and bam! you're done!
 
chessrock said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why not use a direct mult splitter box to send every mic signal to two pres at the same time? Then it would be a matter of monitoring identical sessions.

Makes a bit more sense...right?
 
As I was saying earlier, it is a huge overgeneralization.


You have to match the right component with the right design.

The first company to use the right component was symentrix (with the ssm2015). Only they dropped the ball with a few minor flaws in the design (mostly in the output section).

Then m-audio came along and did it again with the dmp2 (which used the INA103 -- an eariler version of the 163) . . . but not only did they forget to give it enough input headroom -- but they also forgot to give it a full 48 volts with which to properly supply a phantom-powered condenser microphone. :D

And it still didn't sound that bad, and that has to say something!

The Rane MS-1B also uses the chip. It's not the best design either, but I still like it a lot for certain things.
 
pdaniels said:
So what are we saying here--Is it safe to assume that any pre using the INA163 is pretty good? Or is that a huge overgeneralization?
Click to expand...

INA163 has basic characteristics that are pretty good. Whether the circuit design exploits it, that's another issue.

You can do a true differntial design (two INA163's), a transconductance (i.e. current feedback ala Grace), or use DC servo so no coupling caps are used in the signal path.

Or you can do a single stage voltage feedback amp - the most 'ordinary' kind.

Whether any of them actually sounds better than the others, well, that's another story that's hard to answer.

That said, this got me curious. If anyone has any recordings done by DMP3, I'd like to hear it - perferrably vox or acoustic guitar track.
 
tigerbomb said:
INA163 has basic characteristics that are pretty good. Whether the circuit design exploits it, that's another issue.
Click to expand...

I think the gist of what I've been trying to say is that it's easier and less expensive to "exploit" the characteristics of a good opamp like the 163, thus making it a good fit for a budget mic pre design.

Whereas, something like the 2017 is much trickier to exploit, and much easier to totally screw up if you don't get it exactly right. :D

And ironically enough, the 2017 is what you'll find in most budget pres made over the last 10 years.
 
Does anyone know if the DMP2 pre's in the M-Audio Omni Studio also lack proper 48v Phantom power? Will this have a negative effect on all mics or will some work at optimum levels with less than 48v?

What is the headroom of the DMP2's?
 
chessrock said:
I think the gist of what I've been trying to say is that it's easier and less expensive to "exploit" the characteristics of a good opamp like the 163, thus making it a good fit for a budget mic pre design.

Whereas, something like the 2017 is much trickier to exploit, and much easier to totally screw up if you don't get it exactly right. :D

And ironically enough, the 2017 is what you'll find in most budget pres made over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

Having done some DIY projects (and sounds like you do too?) using both SSM2017 and INA103, I'd say there were different sets of challenges for both.

But I can see that a balanced input 2017 circuit can be made pretty cheaply like you say. I experimented mostly with various transformer input and output buffering on my breadboard.

INA103 was more like building an RF radio than an audio circuit. Especially when it goes into oscillation > 100KHz at max gain depending on the input..... (I was trying to build a low noise, very high gain amp for ribbon mic)

Now, I have a couple of SSM2019 samples I've been wanting to play with.....
 
i'm no engineer..but doesn't circuitry have to do with it also? the DMP3 is class A discrete?(no i don't know what this means but i know most high-end preamps are class A the only i can think of which is not is the NEVE and i can't remember which model)
 
Thanks Chessrock.
This is good news for Me and other Aardvark owners...
The past few months I was trying to find where the Aardvark Pres sit in the food chain. What I came up with is that they are about the same if not a little better than the DMP-3. I've Not A/B em that info came from other users responses.

I have some files from someone Here, doing a Bass riff through the RNP, DMP-3, & VTB-1 w/ and with out the tube. I thought the VTB-1 sucked. & that the DMP-3 was the best (for bass). It seemed to have a little more low than the RNP.
BUT I bought into the idea of after Stacking tracks, w/ a better Pre you'll end up with more definition in the final mixed track. & the RNP did seem a little more detailed, So I could see where the RNP would be better after many tracks are down. Hmmmm? & so I been looking ay the RNP/Grace101 combo, or a Sytek, or Sebatron.

If this all is true, then I think I should just be looking for a color unit like the Sebatron, and it has many options. OR if I want to just get better cleaner recordings, get the Apogee Mini-Me.

You'd think if this is the case that M-Audio would advertise the unit w/ Burr Browns... like Sytek does, er did.

B.
 
Chessrock,
I know you have both experience with the DMP3 and the Mindprint DI-Port of which I heard you say good things in the past as well. Both cost practically the same in Europe (€250-260,-). What would be your choice? To me, having the DI-Port's converters would be a welcome bonus where I'd find use for but it would not be vital to have them.
 
tigerbomb said:
That said, this got me curious. If anyone has any recordings done by DMP3, I'd like to hear it - perferrably vox or acoustic guitar track.
Click to expand...

Well, if anyone has any recordings that sound top-notch, then I suppose it would tell you that "top-notch" sound CAN be obtained with that preamp, but NOT necessarily the quality YOU'RE going to get with it just by buying it.

I mean, I could give you a stereo acoustic guitar with a single male vocal sample, all recorded with a DaviSound "Mic-All" preamp (I've posted it before in the Clinic, but it didn't get much attention), but that would only tell you the quality that CAN be obtained.

Of course, that's a given... And I'd still enjoy hearing what you suggested; regardless of the recording quality.
 
Recording Engineer said:
Well, if anyone has any recordings that sound top-notch, then I suppose it would tell you that "top-notch" sound CAN be obtained with that preamp, but NOT necessarily the quality YOU'RE going to get with it just by buying it.
Click to expand...

But of course.

I certainly wouldn't base my purchase entirely on hearing 3D Micpre CD or TLS website, nor on someone's DMP3 recording.

And I don't think anyone should.

On the other hand, I do like to hear stuff just to sort of give me some idea. Especially in this case, if DMP3 CAN sound halfway decent, it'd be a pretty decent value.

I'm fairly happy (but never satisfied, eh?) with my recording chain so I don't have an immediate need. But it's good to know if there is a decent value equipment.

And by 'value', I mean a decent performing equipment for relatively low cost. RNC is a great value. Speck ASC EQ is a great value. Sadly, most of mass marketed cheap gear is not, as they tend to lack the 'decent prerforming' part.
 
tigerbomb said:
But of course.

I certainly wouldn't base my purchase entirely on hearing 3D Micpre CD or TLS website, nor on someone's DMP3 recording.

And I don't think anyone should.

On the other hand, I do like to hear stuff just to sort of give me some idea. Especially in this case, if DMP3 CAN sound halfway decent, it'd be a pretty decent value.

I'm fairly happy (but never satisfied, eh?) with my recording chain so I don't have an immediate need. But it's good to know if there is a decent value equipment.

And by 'value', I mean a decent performing equipment for relatively low cost. RNC is a great value. Speck ASC EQ is a great value. Sadly, most of mass marketed cheap gear is not, as they tend to lack the 'decent prerforming' part.
Click to expand...

did you find the speck eq to be good at adding air to vocals and other individual tracks as well as a whole mix?

and do you find it WAAAAYYYYYY better then EQ plugs like waves ren eq or the timeworks equalizer or TC EQ etc...
 
Teacher said:
do you find it WAAAAYYYYYY better then EQ plugs like waves ren eq or the timeworks equalizer or TC EQ etc...
Click to expand...

Oh yeah.

I find my Speck ASC (xfmr less) to be clean, quiet, and transparent. It just works and does its thing. Kinda like how I expected plugins to work like, I suppose.

And staying on topic of equipment internals, it blew me away when I opened mine up and only found 5532's and lowly TL074's.
 
chessrock said:
As I was saying earlier, it is a huge overgeneralization.


You have to match the right component with the right design.

The first company to use the right component was symentrix (with the ssm2015). Only they dropped the ball with a few minor flaws in the design (mostly in the output section).

Then m-audio came along and did it again with the dmp2 (which used the INA103 -- an eariler version of the 163) . . . but not only did they forget to give it enough input headroom -- but they also forgot to give it a full 48 volts with which to properly supply a phantom-powered condenser microphone. :D

And it still didn't sound that bad, and that has to say something!

The Rane MS-1B also uses the chip. It's not the best design either, but I still like it a lot for certain things.
Click to expand...



Yes. If people have read any of my posts about the design thing, they will know that I am careful to seperate design issues from component issues. If you design the amp right, with the right component, then the sound should be excellent. The prob with cheap stuff is the cost of design and the cost of components have a price "ceiling". The cheap stuff is good in a rack of guitar stuff, or live applications, but not studio work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top