RNP vs. DMP3

Well, I wasn't worried about being wrong because I was actually hoping I was, the DMP3 being MUCH less expensive and all. I was only basing the results on the first example - I've never heard the DMP3 before. Funny how they sounded exactly opposite this time. :confused:

The main reason I liked the DMP3 is that it sounded clear and pleasant without the harshness usually associated with acoustic guitar. And since I primarily record acoustic instruments, I run from this "harshness" like a vampire runs from the sun! The last thing I want my listeners to do is become fatigued, and they are all to quick to let me know it when they are. The RNP was just less-pleasant (not unpleasant, though) in this example.

But this is only one small slice of the pie. The RNP may rule on certain vocals, drum overheads, etc... I'm sure Dot will reveal more on this in the up-coming Listening Sessions (he mentioned he was getting and RNP)

Dot: Maybe you should include a DMP3!

Again, this has been real fun!:)

-Flatpicker
 
Re: tada...

participant said:
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
Click to expand...

Right on... yeah, l want to hear the VTB1 vs the RNP8380 (use the SS setting on the VTB1). Thanks
 
Well, I can breathe a little easier now. Although, I felt very sure about the fact that #1 was the RNP. As I said in my last post, I'm very surprized that so many of you thought it was #2. I really think that the RNP file sounded quite a bit better overall. #1 was a little quieter as Participant has told us, so maybe that's partially what threw you...but, I just don't get it. I also don't agree that the DMP3 clip was warmer sounding. To me, the RNP clip sounded warmer, more natural, and made me picture a real guitar in front of me playing more than the DMP3. The DMP3 didn't sound bad at all though. The difference between the 2 kinda reminds me of the difference between my Rode NT1 and my Studio Projects C1. They are both bright mics, but the NT1 is a little more abrasive in the high mids and doesn't have a lot of air, and the C1's high mids are not quite as pronounced, but it has quite a bit more air up top. The NT1 seems more focused, which can be good in some songs, but overall the C1 is rounder and has more depth, while still being a very bright microphone like the NT1. This is kinda similar to the differences I hear between the RNP and DMP3, although not exactly.

I'm still surprized by some of your conclusions.... but, oh well. Some of your conclusions are exactly the opposite of what I heard. And I don't mean any disrespect to any of you. I'm quite sure that many of you are a lot better at recording and mixing than I am. I'm just surprized. :confused:

Meb
 
Re: Re: tada...

chessrock said:


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.
Click to expand...

I didn't like either example as a test to base a purchase off of. Neither mic pre made me feel GAS here. I thought the RNP to be No. 2 due to the speed. But, I think you nailed the comparison between the two preamps. Based on either of these samples, I'd be happy to stay with an Audio Buddy from now on. But, I do own an RNP and an Audio Buddy so I guess I'm stuck. ;)

FWIW, I can tell you from A/B'ing mic preamps in the past that this stuff is very tricky to do properly. I'd like to hear various samples from each. I'd like to hear a vocal sample and a DI sample generally. I can tell you guys that an Audio Buddy tends to sound pretty damn good on acoustic guitar which is one of the reasons I keep one despite upgrading mic preamps.

Steve
Mojo Pie
 
Last edited:
well... this tells you one thing... 300 dollars dont mean a thing if it aint got that cling... umm...errr...

would love to hear the same preamp quiz with vocals. I think the DMP impressed me... did anyone else feel the RNP had more noise/hiss on the track? anyone know why that is... i would have expected the RNP to have lower noise based on price alone (stupid assumption).

Excited for the VTB comparison as well. keep it coming!
 
a recurring theme

A lot of good sports, here. Good to see...

The recurring theme in your reactions seems to be: they're both good, but maybe the RNP wasn't as cut-out for this application.

With THIS guitar, THIS guitarist, THIS room, THOSE mics... under THESE conditions--the DMP3 was better (IYO).

It could very well be that the RNP would sound better on a different guitar, or the same guitar & different guitarist. It all boils down to what I've heard on this site many times, and learned in practice: trust your ears. If it sounds good, it is good.

JuSumPilgrim reaffirmed the point that this test doesn't prove anything in the way of how the tracks would mix; I suspect (as probably most of you do) that the DMP3 track would be harder to mix. To me, the RNP definitely sounded tighter... therefore probably easier to mix.

VTB1/RNP comparison coming this weekend. Thanks for "participating" ("party-pantsing?" :D) in this one :)


Chad
 
participant said:
With THIS guitar, THIS guitarist, THIS room, THOSE mics... under THESE conditions--the DMP3 was better (IYO).
Click to expand...

Actually I was the one that wrote a sentence very similar to this, and in My opinion the DMP3 did NOT sound better:D

I really appreciate you taking the time to do this test Participant. You did a great job, and making it a blind test was definitely the best way to go!

Meb
 
I was reading on rec.audio.pro tonight and saw a thread where a guy was talking about how the seeming weak link of the RNP was acoustic guitar which sounded better on the Grace 101. Then, when he needed to put a solo acoustic in it ended up being through the RNP b/c the Grace just didn't cut it in that situation.

Steve
Mojo Pie
 
Re: a recurring theme

participant said:
VTB1/RNP comparison coming this weekend. Thanks for "participating" ("party-pantsing?" :D) in this one :)
Chad
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to hearing it. Thanks
 
Re: tada...

participant said:
File #1 was the RNP; File #2 was the DMP3
Click to expand...

That makes me very happy, becuase I listened to the two samples under the false assumption that it was the other way around, and I came to the conclusion that #2 was lacking in highs, and that #1 was a clearer and more transparent pre-amp, and that I liked that sound better.

It's hard to say though, becuase mics, room and placement makes a bigger difference than the preamps, but that was the imporession I got, and I was getting ready to be dissapointed about the RNP (not that it would have mattered, I'm not planning on buying one). I'm glad I didn't have to. The RNP is the winner in this test in my unusually humble opinion. :)
 
Well, the only thing I can add (and I didnt listen since the listening chain has been ruined by mp3) is:

Stacking tracks, the difference between a Mackie VLZ Pro and The RNP is phenomenal. Its the difference between allright and really really good. "Lifting the blanket" so to speak. Same with the Soundcraft M series and the RNP. RNP way better.
Same with everything else I have tried thats cheap. Now, its CERTAINLY a different flavor than say, a Neve 1272 or API 512, but its not a transformer based preamp either, but it is certainly a contendor when I think about preamps, as good as any Focusrite Red/Blue or Neve in some situations, and the DMP, Mackie, Meek, are not. The RNP wont impart that huge thick snare like an API, but an API wont have the clarity on say, overheads, that the RNP has. Although I cant speak from experience about the DMP3, I'm not going to even consider it a contender with the overall clarity and quality of the RNP sound. I have 4 channels of RNP here right now, and I would not trade it for 8 channels of DMP3, or even 12.
All I can say is... the thing made a nice difference, and the more you stack, the better it shows. Recording an acoustic versus an acoustic track can be revealing, but not like I like. Having a drum kit miced up with 4 or more pres, then having 4 stacked guitars, bass, vocals doubled, etc... the mix will be much more open with the RNP than with this other stuff. I dont beleive the DMP3 to be half the design and anywhere near as thought out or high quality signal chain that the RNP is. I will say that the RNP is a little buggy yet. No biggie though, he'll take care of you if it has a problem.
I did talk to him on the phone not long ago, and he does have the intention of making a RNEQ. I have every reason to beleive it will be an EQ of Speck or API quality, around $400 probably. (I SHOULD have asked if it would be a stereo unit, dual mono, or single channel, damn) This guy is going to basically make a channel strip, RNP, RNC, and RNEQ that is pristine and very high end, for around $800/channel and you can put it together one peiece at a time as money allows.
Look around on RAP and people have taken them apart (DMP3) and they are full of the same ole cheap components that a Mackie and the other cheap pres have. Nuff said there.
Its your money... spend it as you like. Just dont complain when your tracks dont sound like mine :)
Peace.
 
This guy is going to basically make a channel strip, RNP, RNC, and RNEQ that is pristine and very high end, for around $800/channel and you can put it together one peiece at a time as money allows.
Click to expand...

I ran the modular concept by some folks over at another forum who were seeking ideas for future technology. This is brilliant and I am glad FMR is adopting this strategy. It is more attractive to the home recorder to spend money on quality components around $400 to $500 a pop. The modular strategy does this by letting people build a quality chain a little at a time with the end result of a fairly high quality rack as the end solution.

This could be expanded beyond pre, EQ, and compressors to effects, distressors etc. In the end I would pay out around $2K-$3K and have a killer home studio only built a little at a time as money allows.

If FMR adopts this strategy they will have put a whole new spin on the recording game. One that will benefit HR types and their company.
 
tubedude said:
Its your money... spend it as you like. Just dont complain when your tracks dont sound like mine :)
Click to expand...

I heard the difference between the two, as well. I can hear the clarity, and can see where the the RNP file would mix better as more tracks are piled on.

Then I downloaded both of Participant's files and EQ'ed the DMP3 file to sound almost exactly like the RNP file. I'd bet $100 you wouldn't be able to tell them apart now (other than performance). It took me a total of about 2 minutes.

Spend your money as you like. Although you saved yourself a few minute's work, don't complain when the other guy's tracks sound just as good, but you're broke and he isn't. :D
 
Chessrock,

As I am a current DMP3 owner I feel it is your duty to tell me where you had cut and boost to emulate the RNP......... :D

Just curious. If you want to ignore me its OK. However, Christmas is two days away and I have connections with the man up north.
 
no problem, chess. just as long as you don't complain that the summed result of your 32 track project with corrective eq on each track sounds phasier than what i got just by using decent preamps.
 
chessrock said:
Spend your money as you like. Although you saved yourself a few minute's work, don't complain when the other guy's tracks sound just as good, but you're broke and he isn't. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly the science behind mic modelling. At first it sounds tempting but in the end everyone moves on to thinking the real thing is better.

That said: I wouldn't use these tracks as a model.

Steve
www.piemusic.com
 
O.k. So Tubedude, now you bashed the praised Ghost pre-amps (in the Soundcraft Spirit M-series) in favour of the RNP, I wonder what you think of RNP vs. Sytek MPX-4aii...

Oh, and when talking about small mixers, how would you rate Mackie's VLZ Pro-pre, Behringer's Invisible pre and Soundcraft Spirit's UltraMic-pre?

From my limited experience (with a Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro, a Behringer MX1604A and a Soundcraft Spirit LX7), I'd say the Soundcraft is the noisiest, but also the nicest. The other two have this high-mid harshness going on.
Lemme hear your opinion)
 
littledog said:
no problem, chess. just as long as you don't complain that the summed result of your 32 track project with corrective eq on each track sounds phasier than what i got just by using decent preamps.
Click to expand...

Next time I track 32 separate accoustic guitar tracks to be summed, I'll call and ask you to recommend me a pre to rent or buy. Unitll then . . .

I doubt you'd be able to get a usable accoustic guitar track just by using decent pres without corrective eq. Unless they had some sort of serious deficiencies from 500 hz on down.

Middleman: Waves Linear Phase Multiband. Lowest band set at 250 hz and below (thresh= -12, attack=20, rel=60)). Second lowest band set at 250-500 hz (thresh= -13, attack=14, rel=50). Bypass the other two bands. Behavior=Electro, Release=ARC, Knee=0.50. I'd recommend some makeup gain of about 1.5 to 2 db to better match levels.

Sorry, I guess I cheated by using multiband comp instead of EQ. By the way, littledog, that's LINEAR PHASE multiband. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top