My thoughts on the RNP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dot
  • Start date Start date
little dog, i'll post up the relevant part of michael grace's email as a sidebar when i do the review. he did say the wall wart was a major cost savings that did not affect sound whatsoever.

the rest i'm keeping a secret until the review is published.

i think by a smidge better i think michael probably meant something more like the 101 is like your neumann but the 201 might be more like a soundelux.
 
Participant: "I own a FMR RNP. It's noisier than my other pres. For acoustic guitar, it flat out sucks. I suspect it would perform similarly on most small diaphram condenser recording applications, where noise is a factor."

I have to disagree with part of this. I agree that the RNP is noisy if you crank the gain all the way up and listen to the self-noise. However, I completely disagree that it sucks on acoustic and other small diaphram applications. I just recorded some acoustic tracks with KM-184s through the RNP, as well as some Hammond organ tracks. I set the gain on the RNP at about 11 o'clock. I'll be damned if I can hear any preamp noise in the track.
 
Participant: "I own a FMR RNP. It's noisier than my other pres. For acoustic guitar, it flat out sucks. I suspect it would perform similarly on most small diaphram condenser recording applications, where noise is a factor."

This statement is untrue. i have recorded acoustic tracks that have come out awesome with this pre. with the gain turned up to 30 i have no noise at all and plenty of gain. participant maybe the real problem is your guitar or the way you play it or both.
i use a Taylor 310 and a C-1 for the mic and the RNP rocks...

p.s. you dont have a relative named Dot do you?.....lol

Bostonfan2
 
BradD said:
Participant: "I own a FMR RNP. It's noisier than my other pres. For acoustic guitar, it flat out sucks. I suspect it would perform similarly on most small diaphram condenser recording applications, where noise is a factor."

I have to disagree with part of this. I agree that the RNP is noisy if you crank the gain all the way up and listen to the self-noise. However, I completely disagree that it sucks on acoustic and other small diaphram applications. I just recorded some acoustic tracks with KM-184s through the RNP, as well as some Hammond organ tracks. I set the gain on the RNP at about 11 o'clock. I'll be damned if I can hear any preamp noise in the track.

Good for you. Stereo mic'ing acoustics as I do, in the ONE room I can use (acoustically treated), mic'ing distance is usually between 12" and 24" (inches). I'm using stereo x/y mc012's. This usually requires at least 36db of gain, giving me a signal that peaks out around -5dbFS. 42db generally clips, unless I mic at least 24" away. It's really a hinderance. It makes it so only certain distances/combinations would work; very little flexibility.

42db of gain makes the noise floor quite loud... I'm sure you hear that.

That said, I've tried a variety of positions... but still no variety of rooms. And a cheap little DMP3 outperformed the RNP in the exact same room.

I'll retract the blanket statement "It sucks on acoustic guitar", because I haven't mic'ed every possible guitar, in every possible room.

Fair enough? I can only offer my experience on the subject. I'm not talking out of my ass.
Click to expand...
 
bostonfan2 said:
Participant: "I own a FMR RNP. It's noisier than my other pres. For acoustic guitar, it flat out sucks. I suspect it would perform similarly on most small diaphram condenser recording applications, where noise is a factor."

This statement is untrue. i have recorded acoustic tracks that have come out awesome with this pre.

Just remember that experience is relative. "Awesome" to you may be "sucky" to me, and vice-versa.

p.s. you dont have a relative named Dot do you?.....lol

Don't be an asshole.
Click to expand...
 
Participant, I agree with you that the noise floor gets loud above 36db. The stuff I tracked tonight was done at 24db, and I seemed to have plenty of gain. The peak meters on my Digi 001 hit the yellow, but no red. I'm also recording in one small almost closet sized room treated with Auralex. It surprises me that you have to use that much gain. If I crank the gain up that much, not only to get floor noise, but the fan on my Mac becomes quite audible. Anyway, I understand your point if you have to drive it that hot to get the levels you need.
 
ozraves said:
little dog, i'll post up the relevant part of michael grace's email as a sidebar when i do the review. he did say the wall wart was a major cost savings that did not affect sound whatsoever.

the rest i'm keeping a secret until the review is published.

i think by a smidge better i think michael probably meant something more like the 101 is like your neumann but the 201 might be more like a soundelux.
Click to expand...

well, at $500 for a power supply it better be one hell of a power supply. and while that may not affect the sound much, obviously something in there must account for the specs difference!

as far as neumann vs. soundeluxe, I think you must be confusing me with cyanjaguar. he's the U87 freak around here. I'm the Lawson guy.

anyway, if you don't want to have this discussion at this time that's cool, but next time it might be better not to start something you don't want to finish.
 
Would it be a honest statment to say that the RNP would NOT be a good preamp choice for someome wanting to record low volume sources such as wildlife, insects, and etc?
 
littledog said:
well, at $500 for a power supply it better be one hell of a power supply. and while that may not affect the sound much, obviously something in there must account for the specs difference!

as far as neumann vs. soundeluxe, I think you must be confusing me with cyanjaguar. he's the U87 freak around here. I'm the Lawson guy.

anyway, if you don't want to have this discussion at this time that's cool, but next time it might be better not to start something you don't want to finish.
Click to expand...

read the review when it gets posted. :)

steve, mojo pie
www.piemusic.com
 
DJL said:
Would it be a honest statment to say that the RNP would NOT be a good preamp choice for someome wanting to record low volume sources such as wildlife, insects, and etc?
Click to expand...

i would think that you'd want the grace lunatec or the apogee mini me for something like that.
 
ozraves said:
i would think that you'd want the grace lunatec or the apogee mini me for something like that.
Click to expand...

Yea, I don't think the RNP would be a good choice for that either. I believe a very quiet and transparent (colorless) preamp with a lot of gain would be best.
 
What might work very well could be an Audio Buddy with the channels run in series.

You would plug your mic into Channel 1, take the channel 1 output and feed it into the Di input of Channel 2. Set the channel 1 Gain for moderate gain, then adjust channel 2 gain for addition output.

That way, neither channel is working near it's limits and you might be able to have a pretty noise free signal.

Haven't tried it to see if it would work, but it should, in theory anyway. In practice, there may be other problems.
 
But if they are otherwise identical, I would be very interested to hear why Michael Grace prices the 201 significantly higher than two 101's.
Click to expand...

They're not otherwise identical. But they're very close.

I agree that in practice, most people probably can't hear the difference. But most people probably can't hear the difference between a lot of things. (...like a C1 and a U87).
Click to expand...

I think, in an A/B test, the difference between a C1 and U87 would be audible to almost anyone, whereas the differences between a 201 and a 101 would be audible to almost nobody.

So, inferior power supply, inferior specs, inferior cosmetics, slightly inferior sound... where is the argument?

My intention was never to imply that the 101 was crappy. Only to point out that there might be a misconception that the 101 was simply a one channel version of the 201. And that is not the case. And Grace must know it, or they wouldn't charge almost 3 times the price of the 101 for the 201.
Click to expand...

The power supply on the 201 is a higher-voltage power supply than the 101, so it has a higher maximum output voltage (+29 dBu instead of +25). The 201's power supply can also be set to different voltages for worldwide use. The 201 can also drive longer output cables since its outputs put out more current (but we're talking 350 feet vs 1000). The 201's gain controls are in 2 dB steps rather than 5 dB (24 positions vs 11), so you've got finer control with the 201, but those switches cost quite a bit more (same philosophy applies to the RNP, although with good converters 6 dB steps are more than sufficient for all but the most extreme circumstances). Input circuitry and amplifier are the same. Grace never claimed that the 101 was simply a one-channel version of the 201, but they've said it's very close, and it is. It's a great deal at about 40% less per channel (you should have said "or they wouldn't charge 1.6 times the price of two 101's for the 201"...saying it's 3 times the price can be a little misleading if someone doesn't realize you're comparing a one-channel box to a two).

-Duardo
 
Thanks, Duardo. I don't think anything I said is in direct disagreement with any of your points - if anything you helped to enumerate some more of the specific differences between the units. The gain increments, for instance, was something i was unaware of.

the C1/U87 was somewhat tongue in cheek, referencing a long standing running debate around here. i concede that the preamp differences are most likely far more subtle.

As far as price, what i thought i said was that the 201 was almost 3x the price of the 101. the implication was that if they were nearly identical it would be more likely to be only about twice the price. i stand by that statement. My point really is that i have enough respect for the grace design team to believe that if the 201 is priced that much more per channel, there must be some useful differences - otherwise no one would bother buying it.

the 201, i always assumed, was a two channel version of the 801, which might really be the quality/price per channel champion out of the three. Or are there differences there as well?

anyway, thanks for the additional info. i certainly wouldn't kick any Grace Designs product out of my studio.
 
Duardo said:
The 201's gain controls are in 2 dB steps rather than 5 dB (24 positions vs 11), so you've got finer control with the 201, but those switches cost quite a bit more (same philosophy applies to the RNP, although with good converters 6 dB steps are more than sufficient for all but the most extreme circumstances).
Click to expand...

Good info on the difference, Duardo. I'd just add that while the 101 steps up in gain by 5 dB, one of the major differences that separates the design of the 101 and the RNP is that the 101 has a 10 dB fine adjustment output trim - which makes a huge difference in getting an exact level adjustment. And it's the lack of an output trim on the RNP in combination with the clumsy 6 dB input gain step that is unacceptable to me on a $500 product.

We've got pretty damn good A/D converters on RADAR, and the recording level we could get with the RNP was either -3 dB from optimum or + 3 dB over optimum. In our recent bass session, the RNP was the only pre we used in which we had to "cheat". We set the level at +3 dB over what we wanted [ because that's as close as we could get it with the RNP ] which was causing clipping. I had to ask the guy playing the bass to slightly turn down the volume on the bass in order to achieve the optimum recording level.

We all found that pretty unamusing, considering that even the cheapest pres in the bunch - like the Audio Buddy, Joe Meek MQ3, VTB-1 and the Behringer Ultragain Pro - gave us absolutely no problem with achieving perfect recording levels.

_____________

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions
 
Last edited:
The "channels run in series" trick does work.
I've hesitated about posting about it as I thought it would be too easy
for someone to overload something in the signal chain if they weren't
careful coordinating the levels.

Chris
 
While this maybe less than ideal, those of us running an RNC with the RNP simply fine tune the RNC output and bingo ...great levels.

Bostonfan2
 
It's a good point. I often run my detented preamps through my Millenia Media Twin-Com, because the gain pots are dead quiet. I can switch the compressor out of the circuitry, and just use it to ride the gain on a dynamic performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top