chessparov
New member
Jim's a nice guy who's supposed to do great work.
Chris
Chris
RNP vs. DMP3
- Thread starter participant
- Start date
participant
New member
Good replies... I'll let this go another day or so for more... then reveal which pre was which.
Leaving you with just that tease, here's some advice: just go with your gut (ears)
Leaving you with just that tease, here's some advice: just go with your gut (ears)
Flatpicker
...
Well, I’m gonna jump in and say, based on the first round:
#1 =DMP3
#2 =RNP
In this instance, # 2 is a little easier on the ear, but in a different mix with a different mic and a different guitar, who knows? A different mic/instrument/mix might reverse things altogether. BTW, what is the brand and model of the guitar – or did I miss that earlier?
Even if #2 is the RNP, I’d say based on this example, the RNP’s a bit overpriced compared to the DMP3.
I must admit, I didn’t notice any of the RNP’s high end everyone keeps raving about on either example. But then again, we’re listening to mp3s and my “rock musician” ears aren’t the best in the world – which is even more sad because I play mostly bluegrass!.
BTW, great thread!
-Flatpicker
#1 =DMP3
#2 =RNP
In this instance, # 2 is a little easier on the ear, but in a different mix with a different mic and a different guitar, who knows? A different mic/instrument/mix might reverse things altogether. BTW, what is the brand and model of the guitar – or did I miss that earlier?
Even if #2 is the RNP, I’d say based on this example, the RNP’s a bit overpriced compared to the DMP3.
I must admit, I didn’t notice any of the RNP’s high end everyone keeps raving about on either example. But then again, we’re listening to mp3s and my “rock musician” ears aren’t the best in the world – which is even more sad because I play mostly bluegrass!.
BTW, great thread!
-Flatpicker
EDIT: After listening to these clips a few times each, I'm going with my initial assessment, which is I like #2 better.
... they both sound really different. I can't say which clip is which preamp because I don't have either unit.
#1 has more sharpness to it, but comparatively speaking, it's kinda shrill when compared to #2 (I'm not saying #1 is shrill -- it just, comparitively speaking, emphasizes the highs and some of the lows seem to be missing. You can tell in the movement of the strummed chords especially. Or I can. Or I'm hearing things not there. Whatever). It has more top end, maybe more air.
#2 is definitely more low/midrange heavy; It seems more "whole" and I like it for this being a solo track, but will it be as easy to mix, that's the question.
Actually, considering you could hear such a difference on ONE track means it'd make quite a significant difference in your sound if you recorded several tracks thru the same preamp, whichever flavor you prefer. I'd be interested to know now which is which. Participant, yer gonna post it HERE on this thread right?
... they both sound really different. I can't say which clip is which preamp because I don't have either unit.
#1 has more sharpness to it, but comparatively speaking, it's kinda shrill when compared to #2 (I'm not saying #1 is shrill -- it just, comparitively speaking, emphasizes the highs and some of the lows seem to be missing. You can tell in the movement of the strummed chords especially. Or I can. Or I'm hearing things not there. Whatever). It has more top end, maybe more air.
#2 is definitely more low/midrange heavy; It seems more "whole" and I like it for this being a solo track, but will it be as easy to mix, that's the question.
Actually, considering you could hear such a difference on ONE track means it'd make quite a significant difference in your sound if you recorded several tracks thru the same preamp, whichever flavor you prefer. I'd be interested to know now which is which. Participant, yer gonna post it HERE on this thread right?
Last edited:
jet-rocker
New member
I haven't listened, but I'm guessing that both clips are the same preamp......
participant
New member
jet-rocker said:I haven't listened, but I'm guessing that both clips are the same preamp......
Nope... definitely two different pres. One is the DMP3, t'other the RNP. Why do people suspect subterfuge?
participant
New member
A1A2 said:i am not gonna guess which is which here, just wanted to say, you got a real quiet environment, how do you do that? where is the PC??
Uh... the PC is in the front room--but it's not in the rig at all)
There's a pic of my room here... the guitar I'm playing happens to be that acoustic/electric seen in the bottom right.
I am not guessing because I keep picturing billy's vocal as soon as the song starts
Cool ... at least it sounds somewhat like the song it's supposed to be
(no TABlature... all "picking it out" from memory of the song).---
Side note: It's interesting how many things/details you guys are hearing in these files. I wouldn't post my opinion to a thread like this... god... what if it turned out I was WRONG
Some of you got your bases covered, though jet-rocker
New member
See I'd listen after having 125 ounces of beer on a cheap Thursday night, but.................... you know. I probably couldn't hear a school bus bearing down on me.
How's this: I want the RNP to sound markedly better, cuz McQ is a wild rock and roll beast.....
NIght kiddies.
-J
How's this: I want the RNP to sound markedly better, cuz McQ is a wild rock and roll beast.....
NIght kiddies.
-J
uh, oh...I can't sleep....
I'm gonna stick with my first guess that #1 is the RNP. I'm really actually rather surprized that so many of you think it is #2. But, of course, since I'm a singer-songwriter first and foremost, and am not as experienced as some of you, I am getting more and more nervous with my decision as time goes by and more and more people say it's #2. But, I still completely think it is #1
However, I think we(I) may be missing the point that so many with more experience have been trying to tell us for so long, especially about preamps. Doing this type of test really doesn't tell us that much about which preamp is overall better. I don't agree with some posters here that say because they don't hear a lot of difference in these two preamps, that that means that spending the extra cash on the RNP could be a waste. The difference between one solid state preamp and another, unless it totally sucks, is almost never gonna be huge. People spend lots of money to get that 'little bit better' sound. Once you reach a certain level of equipment, people spend lots and lots of money to get a rather small amount of improvement. They may think it's a huge improvement, but most people, probably couldn't even tell the difference. Many, many of the things that us musicians/engineers work so, so hard on when writing or recording, are extremely small and would probably never be heard by most listenners. How many times have you worked hours and hours on something that you think is now SO much better or different than before, only to have a friend tell you they can't hear much of a difference, and you have to explain to them what you did in order for them to possibly hear it(or, at least tell you they hear it). Now, I know that sometimes it's because there really ISN'T much of a difference and you were just wasting your time. But most of the time, I still believe that the time you spent was well worth it. Art is often times in the details. Little small things that most will never hear. But, I believe that even though most people might not be able to explain or 'put their finger on' the small things that they hear, that they can still 'feel' the difference inside. EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT. And those little details and nuances add up, just like the small differences between one preamp or another add up in a mix. Even though your average person off the street probably couldn't explain or maybe even hear the difference between a $100 preamp and a $5000 preamp, I believe that the better preamp of the two would still 'move' them more. This is very hard to explain, which may be exactly my point.
Also, how many times do people have to tell me(us) that one particular mic, or guitar, or voice might sound better on some piece of junk preamp instead of a Neve? Most everything else might sound better on the Neve, but that one guitar or whatever, sounds best with the piece of crap preamp mixed with this certain mic.
My gut tells me that when Harvey says the RNP is great, that I should trust that. Some people I definitely don't trust, but I have to trust my instincts and start somewhere.
I find myself getting so caught up in threads like this, as if I'm gonna find some elusive secret to getting great sound, when in actuality most tests like this are usually influenced by too many things to make a decision on whether any one thing is better than the other. All we can generally say is that in this room, with these microphones, and this guitar, and with this player, that we like one of the preamps over the other. You can't really get too much else out of this.
Mostly, I am writing this to myself, but I thought I might as well drag some of you through my internal rant
I still think #1 is the RNP
God, I need sleep.....
Meb
I'm gonna stick with my first guess that #1 is the RNP. I'm really actually rather surprized that so many of you think it is #2. But, of course, since I'm a singer-songwriter first and foremost, and am not as experienced as some of you, I am getting more and more nervous with my decision as time goes by and more and more people say it's #2. But, I still completely think it is #1
However, I think we(I) may be missing the point that so many with more experience have been trying to tell us for so long, especially about preamps. Doing this type of test really doesn't tell us that much about which preamp is overall better. I don't agree with some posters here that say because they don't hear a lot of difference in these two preamps, that that means that spending the extra cash on the RNP could be a waste. The difference between one solid state preamp and another, unless it totally sucks, is almost never gonna be huge. People spend lots of money to get that 'little bit better' sound. Once you reach a certain level of equipment, people spend lots and lots of money to get a rather small amount of improvement. They may think it's a huge improvement, but most people, probably couldn't even tell the difference. Many, many of the things that us musicians/engineers work so, so hard on when writing or recording, are extremely small and would probably never be heard by most listenners. How many times have you worked hours and hours on something that you think is now SO much better or different than before, only to have a friend tell you they can't hear much of a difference, and you have to explain to them what you did in order for them to possibly hear it(or, at least tell you they hear it
). Now, I know that sometimes it's because there really ISN'T much of a difference and you were just wasting your time. But most of the time, I still believe that the time you spent was well worth it. Art is often times in the details. Little small things that most will never hear. But, I believe that even though most people might not be able to explain or 'put their finger on' the small things that they hear, that they can still 'feel' the difference inside. EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT. And those little details and nuances add up, just like the small differences between one preamp or another add up in a mix. Even though your average person off the street probably couldn't explain or maybe even hear the difference between a $100 preamp and a $5000 preamp, I believe that the better preamp of the two would still 'move' them more. This is very hard to explain, which may be exactly my point. Also, how many times do people have to tell me(us) that one particular mic, or guitar, or voice might sound better on some piece of junk preamp instead of a Neve? Most everything else might sound better on the Neve, but that one guitar or whatever, sounds best with the piece of crap preamp mixed with this certain mic.
My gut tells me that when Harvey says the RNP is great, that I should trust that. Some people I definitely don't trust, but I have to trust my instincts and start somewhere.
I find myself getting so caught up in threads like this, as if I'm gonna find some elusive secret to getting great sound, when in actuality most tests like this are usually influenced by too many things to make a decision on whether any one thing is better than the other. All we can generally say is that in this room, with these microphones, and this guitar, and with this player, that we like one of the preamps over the other. You can't really get too much else out of this.
Mostly, I am writing this to myself, but I thought I might as well drag some of you through my internal rant
I still think #1 is the RNP
God, I need sleep.....
Meb
Last edited:
participant
New member
tada...
(puts on the sunglasses, like Gidge & Dr. Stool (er... Stawl))
A most interesting test. There must be at least 10 excuses those who have guessed wrong could use, chief among them could have been the performance on #2 (oops... I missed two notes in the arpeggios)
Another could be the encoded MP3, or the format itself (Lame 3.92, w/dbPower Amp front end).
Another might be some unseen failing on my part, other than performance.
Another could be the lack of adequate monitors/room to listen to the files (hmmm...)
Another could be not knowing what to listen for.
And last (but not least) the undue influence of previous posters
File #1 was the RNP; File #2 was the DMP3
There was no subterfuge; I didn't purposely create a poor performance to mislead, or anything. The DMP3 performance was because my left hand started cramping up--could barely get thru it without flamming... had to really, REALLY squeeze to keep it going...
Meb, StevenLindsey & Middleman... you're right (although Middleman started doubting his ears )
chessrock was there, right off the bat too; but then blew it by covering his bases (he managed to get back there... with his "that's what I was thinking" comment)
I think people imagined I was trying to make the RNP look bad by creating a slightly poorer performance in the second file--why, I don't know. This test really proves nothing, as some people have noted. IMO more substatial and important tests would involve using multiple stacked tracks in a mix.
I also believe some people thought #2 was more "whole" because the volume was slightly higher... NOT an inconsistency; it's the direct result of micing at the exact same distance. Both tracks' levels were set so that during setup, they peaked around -2db.
ozraves obviously has nothing but contempt for my playing ability
(maybe our friend jet-rocker is in the same ship )
Sorry I couldn't say it was #2, Al.
--
If the results will make you reject, out of hand, any further tests done by me... I'll understand. I'm human, and I'm sure you could pick everything I've done apart somehow. Care was taken to reproduce everything exactly for each pre; but in the end, I couldn't make two performances EXACTLY alike to save my life.
Thanks for checking it out; it was fun. If you'd still like a VTB1 vs. RNP (vocals; guitar amp; bass DI) that could be arranged.
Chad
(puts on the sunglasses, like Gidge & Dr. Stool (er... Stawl))
A most interesting test. There must be at least 10 excuses those who have guessed wrong could use, chief among them could have been the performance on #2 (oops... I missed two notes in the arpeggios
)Another could be the encoded MP3, or the format itself (Lame 3.92, w/dbPower Amp front end).
Another might be some unseen failing on my part, other than performance.
Another could be the lack of adequate monitors/room to listen to the files (hmmm...)
Another could be not knowing what to listen for.
And last (but not least
) the undue influence of previous posters File #1 was the RNP; File #2 was the DMP3
There was no subterfuge; I didn't purposely create a poor performance to mislead, or anything. The DMP3 performance was because my left hand started cramping up--could barely get thru it without flamming... had to really, REALLY squeeze to keep it going...
Meb, StevenLindsey & Middleman... you're right
(although Middleman started doubting his ears )chessrock was there, right off the bat too; but then blew it by covering his bases
(he managed to get back there... with his "that's what I was thinking" comment)I think people imagined I was trying to make the RNP look bad by creating a slightly poorer performance in the second file--why, I don't know. This test really proves nothing, as some people have noted. IMO more substatial and important tests would involve using multiple stacked tracks in a mix.
I also believe some people thought #2 was more "whole" because the volume was slightly higher... NOT an inconsistency; it's the direct result of micing at the exact same distance. Both tracks' levels were set so that during setup, they peaked around -2db.
ozraves obviously has nothing but contempt for my playing ability
(maybe our friend jet-rocker is in the same ship )Sorry I couldn't say it was #2, Al.
--
If the results will make you reject, out of hand, any further tests done by me... I'll understand. I'm human, and I'm sure you could pick everything I've done apart somehow. Care was taken to reproduce everything exactly for each pre; but in the end, I couldn't make two performances EXACTLY alike to save my life.
Thanks for checking it out; it was fun. If you'd still like a VTB1 vs. RNP (vocals; guitar amp; bass DI) that could be arranged.
Chad
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Thank you ............takes a bow
Everything I had read about the RNP talks about its high end sheen. That was the only thing I was keying off. Plus I got to hear your first set of files and the high end emphasis was the same in both tests.
Like I said before, #1 with compression would allow a lot more opportunties for moving the sound around in the mix. #2 by itself was useful for a solo thing but would be hard to work around with other instruments.
Now for those who chose #2, do you want to pay an additional $300 for #1s sound. "Therein lies the rub"
participant, thanks again for taking the time to do this, anxious to hear how the VTB-1 stacks up.
Everything I had read about the RNP talks about its high end sheen. That was the only thing I was keying off. Plus I got to hear your first set of files and the high end emphasis was the same in both tests.
Like I said before, #1 with compression would allow a lot more opportunties for moving the sound around in the mix. #2 by itself was useful for a solo thing but would be hard to work around with other instruments.
Now for those who chose #2, do you want to pay an additional $300 for #1s sound. "Therein lies the rub"
participant, thanks again for taking the time to do this, anxious to hear how the VTB-1 stacks up.
theletterq
New member
This is the kind of stuff this board needs more often....
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
Well, my ears like the DMP3 better apparently. I did listen on studio monitors and did so several times--just listening to the sound and not so much to the performance (which was fine, by the way). I really didn't like the RNP in this test. There were just some things about that sound that made me feel frustrated, and I'm not even sure exactly what. I am certainly not gung ho to get the RNP based on this test, but I suppose I'd need to try one here on a bunch of sources to see what I really thought.
The test was good though--you came through for us Participant. I appreciate your effort. It was enlightening--although not in the way I assumed!
The test was good though--you came through for us Participant. I appreciate your effort. It was enlightening--although not in the way I assumed!
JuSumPilgrim
New member
Ive never been a fan of preamp tests where there is 1 track in question and the idea is to decide which sounds better. Its how they stack up and contribute to the overall sound, how they fit with other tracks, etc that is the issue.
In any case, not having experience with the RNP I think I and most others said #2 given what Participant said was the RNP in the previous test. File #2 matched that most.
In any case, not having experience with the RNP I think I and most others said #2 given what Participant said was the RNP in the previous test. File #2 matched that most.
Re: tada...
The reason I changed my mind is I brought the track up in Sound Forge, and actually noticed that track #2 had slightly more self noise to it in the first few seconds before you started playing, so I figured it must be the RNP (since you mentioned earlier the dmp3 was quieter). Guess I outsmarted myself.
In defense of the dmp3, there was no question it handled the mids much smoother. In file #1, there were frequent peaks and spikes at 2,000 hz and again at 3,500 hz. On the dmp3 file, however, the midrange was almost ruler-flat from 500 hz all the way to 5,000 hz, with a slight downward slope. Jusum has some pretty good ears, and I noticed he spotted that one right away.
From this standpoint, the dmp3 sounded warmer, without a doubt. A few people picked up on this, and mentioned it sounded more pleasing in solo mode. The spikes at 2K and 3.5k that I mentioned on the RNP file I can only assume were the attack of Participant's picking of the strings. It was pretty clear that the RNP was able to respond to this much quicker and thus present it more accurately, as opposed to the way the dmp3 responded a little slower, thus resulting in a "smoothing out" effect.
Although it did sound a little warmer, the dmp3 file did seem to lack a certain amount of definition that I think would be crucial in a busy mix where the attack of the accoustic might otherwise get lost, and the low-mids might run in to danger of sounding mushy as they build up . . . which is exactly what middleman pointed out in his post. And I noticed this even more, the faster and more aggressively Participant picked -- the mushier it got.
Conclusion: dmp3=warmer, smoother. RNP = faster-responding, more detailed. I could even go so far as to say: dmp3=better in solo mode . . . rnp=better in a mix.
Both = good, depending on the application. I can see situations where the dmp3 would be more desirable; ie - in cases where you want the high-mid attack to be not as aggressive, as in some vocals, high-hat, cymbals, etc. And I can also see where the RNP would be killer on something like snare drum or kick, where you want that initial "whap!" and all the transients to come through loud and clear.
participant said:Chessrock was there, right off the bat too; but then blew it by covering his bases
The reason I changed my mind is I brought the track up in Sound Forge, and actually noticed that track #2 had slightly more self noise to it in the first few seconds before you started playing, so I figured it must be the RNP (since you mentioned earlier the dmp3 was quieter).
Guess I outsmarted myself.In defense of the dmp3, there was no question it handled the mids much smoother. In file #1, there were frequent peaks and spikes at 2,000 hz and again at 3,500 hz. On the dmp3 file, however, the midrange was almost ruler-flat from 500 hz all the way to 5,000 hz, with a slight downward slope. Jusum has some pretty good ears, and I noticed he spotted that one right away.
From this standpoint, the dmp3 sounded warmer, without a doubt. A few people picked up on this, and mentioned it sounded more pleasing in solo mode. The spikes at 2K and 3.5k that I mentioned on the RNP file I can only assume were the attack of Participant's picking of the strings. It was pretty clear that the RNP was able to respond to this much quicker and thus present it more accurately, as opposed to the way the dmp3 responded a little slower, thus resulting in a "smoothing out" effect.
Although it did sound a little warmer, the dmp3 file did seem to lack a certain amount of definition that I think would be crucial in a busy mix where the attack of the accoustic might otherwise get lost, and the low-mids might run in to danger of sounding mushy as they build up . . . which is exactly what middleman pointed out in his post. And I noticed this even more, the faster and more aggressively Participant picked -- the mushier it got.
Conclusion: dmp3=warmer, smoother. RNP = faster-responding, more detailed. I could even go so far as to say: dmp3=better in solo mode . . . rnp=better in a mix.
Both = good, depending on the application. I can see situations where the dmp3 would be more desirable; ie - in cases where you want the high-mid attack to be not as aggressive, as in some vocals, high-hat, cymbals, etc. And I can also see where the RNP would be killer on something like snare drum or kick, where you want that initial "whap!" and all the transients to come through loud and clear.
jet-rocker
New member
I listened and I am furious!!!!!
You've ruined my life Participant---You're the reason why I drink.
Not only that: I suspect that there was a millimeter or two difference in mic placement between the tracks--meaning that everyone who listens will become an invalid.
Don't even get me started on the axemanship (Sounded good to me).
All I can say is this test will certainly cause another night of binge drinking--or is that the other way around?
-Jett
You've ruined my life Participant---You're the reason why I drink.
Not only that: I suspect that there was a millimeter or two difference in mic placement between the tracks--meaning that everyone who listens will become an invalid.
Don't even get me started on the axemanship (Sounded good to me).
All I can say is this test will certainly cause another night of binge drinking--or is that the other way around?
-Jett