RNP vs. DMP3

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.
 
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! :D
 
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..
 
tubedude said:
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 :D ...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)
Click to expand...
 
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
 
A1A2 said:
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
Click to expand...

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



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...)
 
Looks like I dont even NEED to listen, judging by everyones comments. Just as I thought. :) Its a killer piece of gear.
 
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 :(
 
Shakuan said:
i just think it sucks that the RNP is a box. doesnt look pretty in a rack :(
Click to expand...

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.
 
Shakuan said:
Props to participant!

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

:D

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 :eek:
Click to expand...
 
SLuiCe said:
(I'm assuming it's the same two trax u put up in the clinic...)
Click to expand...

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...
 
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?
 
Middleman said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Middleman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
participant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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