what preamp?

  • Thread starter Thread starter upperlip
  • Start date Start date
U

upperlip

New member
with a budget of approximately 800 $, what preamp would be a good purchase?
 
Save a bit more and pick-up one of the single channel units at Mercenary.........
 
Depending on what you're recording....I'd look into the Sytek 4 channel (sold direct on ebay) or a Sebatron single channel.
 
I'll chime in with the same comment as Blue Bear... For $275 more you can pick up a Great River ME-1NV which I don't recall "ever" reading a bad review on. It's said to be wonderful and versatile. No, I've never heard one before but, I have read a load of threads here about preamps and Great River units are always held in high regard. Outside of the unit itself being worthy of consideration, when Blue Bear speaks, the world listens. Hee! Hee!
 
Plus, if you didnt know, you get 4 pres with the sytek for $800.

H2H
 
Sytek for 4 channel

but if you want the best you can get for 800 I'd go with the SPECK 5.0
 
upperlip, what are you recording and what kind of sound do you want?
 
chris-from-ky said:
I'll chime in with the same comment as Blue Bear... For $275 more you can pick up a Great River ME-1NV which I don't recall "ever" reading a bad review on. It's said to be wonderful and versatile. No, I've never heard one before but, I have read a load of threads here about preamps and Great River units are always held in high regard.
Click to expand...
I have an ME-1NV and it gets a real workout in my humble studio.

I highly recommend it for $1075 at Mercenary. The only way you'll find it cheaper is used.
 
Rnpa??

How's the Really Nice Pre Amp rated these days.
I've had it on my wish list for awhile....

The Systek looks convenient-for tracking drums [or 2 ones]...

JF
 
People still like it I think. What turned me against it is that the maker of the RNP admits on the website that it has a higher noise floor than other pres and is a little noisy. Some may say it's not a problem but, I just got turned off by that when I saw it. I'm shooting for highER end than the RNP anyway.
 
chris-from-ky said:
People still like it I think. What turned me against it is that the maker of the RNP admits on the website that it has a higher noise floor than other pres and is a little noisy.
Click to expand...

Thats relative talk vs. preamps that are 1K+ per channel and in most situations, even extreme ones it won't matter.

I have cranked my RNP to 60 db of gain with no noise issues as long as i'm not tryna mic a mosquito or something YMMV, I've also noticed that my RNP @ 60 DB has the same SNR ratio as my A-Designs MP-2r, which is rated @ 60db and costs roughly $2300.
 
chris-from-ky said:
What turned me against it is that the maker of the RNP admits on the website that it has a higher noise floor than other pres and is a little noisy.
Click to expand...
Yeah - in a lab -- on a test bench........ you'd never hear that in practical terms............

It's a very good little pre......
 
If you crank the RNP all the way up with a SM57 or MD441 you get some hiss, but not much...it's useable there for a track or two. But used with a condenser the only noise you'll hear is that of the mic or the room. It's not a noisy amp.
 
Like I said... People like it. Just a note. I certainly didn't mean the RNP was crap. I was merely passing along info that I read straight from FMR Audio's site. Here it is...

Start>>>WHAT SUCKS
Now I will violate a very important marketing rule by telling you what I think sucks about the RNP. Why? Because nothing is perfect and compromises always have to be made. By giving you some perspective on the RNP's shortcomings, at least you'll have some insights into the whys about my choices. Let your ears and application requirements be the ultimate guides (YMMV, right, Fletcher?!).

The RNP uses a wallwart. As I explain on our website for the RNC, the RNP also uses a wallwart to: (a) reduce internal noise induction, (b) to make the national/international regulatory compliance less costly, and, (c) to permit easy adaptation of the RNP to countries other than the U.S. The upside is that we've designed the RNP to use a range of wallwarts (see what's cool, above) instead of the pain-in-the-ass one used on the RNC.

The RNP is relatively noisy when evaluated by lab measurement. Many mic pres these days (including the really cheap ones) have very low noise floors (EINs of -127dB or better). The RNP's EIN of -120dB is obviously not as "good" as these others.

I decided that the sonic character (or lack thereof) and a decent price point were more important than the absolute noise floor. Why? First, many of the sought-after vintage mic pre noise levels are much worse than the RNPs. So in actual use, I concluded, many folks (particularly those "in-the-know") prefer good tone, even if it's slightly noisier. Second, even though we have internal versions of the RNP with a lower EIN, we'd have to charge at least $100 more for the privilege of meeting lab measurements that few actual applications would challenge. Third, the trend in microphone development has been to raise the output level of microphones, thereby reducing overall gain requirements of external mic pres. Are there some applications using the RNP that may be problematic? Yes. Will most of us encounter them? No.

The RNP has coarse gain steps of 6dB/step. Under ideal circumstances, when gain staging your signal path, you want to only use as much gain as necessary to do the job. Too much gain and you possibly run out of headroom. Too much or too little gain and you possibly get more noise than you'd like for a given application. So, why not use a gain pot or a switch with more positions to allow finer gain steps?

First, pots are notoriously inconsistent and imprecise for gain setting (see John Hardy's discussion of this) without using a two stage pot...one stage for low gains and the other for high gains. That's OK, but I personally don't like to have a "gain range" switch that can cause the gain to jump 30dB or more. This is primarily 'cause I've been known to inadvertently push the button at an inopportune time (don't tell anyone)! Second, 16 and more positions make for a very expensive switch. In an ideal world, I'd have a switch with an infinite number of steps to allow us to smoothly and precisely maximize the mic pre's dynamic range...allowing us to exactly dial-in the gain we need without too much noise or too low of a clip point.

Given these trade-offs, we've made the RNP with a twelve step switch. The lowest gain setting is 0 dB with a clip point of almost +28dBu. Each step then adds 6 dB of signal gain. Even though this requires that we (the users) are more careful in setting the maximum gain before clipping, its gain setting is a little less critical given the high pre-amp clip point. So, a user is likely to be more concerned with the signal being too hot further down the signal chain, at which point the signal can usually be attenuated to the appropriate level.

Of course, you can always get finer amplitude control by using an RNC in conjunction to your RNP. <<<END

All of you RNP lovers forgive me, please. I was only trying to help a dude pic a preamp.

Chris
 
i would save a little more and get an mp1nv. you wont regret it.
 
Upperlip, are you going for clean...all purpose...what sound? What do you mainly record?

War
 
chris-from-ky said:
Like I said... People like it. Just a note. I certainly didn't mean the RNP was crap. I was merely passing along info that I read straight from FMR Audio's site. Here it is...
Click to expand...

...And how many other companies are honest and straightforward enough to admit where their product falls short? Any mic pre in the below $1000 category is making compromises somewhere. FMR audio is just honest about it because they think they have a great product and don't want to push any bullshit on people. I haven't heard one person complain about the rnp being noisy, but if you really want to know what the best mic pre for under $800 is then get one of these:

http://www.hamptone.com

The only drawback is that you have to put it together yourself.
 
chris-from-ky said:
Like I said... People like it. Just a note. I certainly didn't mean the RNP was crap. I was merely passing along info that I read straight from FMR Audio's site. Here it is...

Start>>>WHAT SUCKS
Now I will violate a very important marketing rule by telling you what I think sucks about the RNP. Why? Because nothing is perfect and compromises always have to be made. By giving you some perspective on the RNP's shortcomings, at least you'll have some insights into the whys about my choices. Let your ears and application requirements be the ultimate guides (YMMV, right, Fletcher?!).

The RNP uses a wallwart. As I explain on our website for the RNC, the RNP also uses a wallwart to: (a) reduce internal noise induction, (b) to make the national/international regulatory compliance less costly, and, (c) to permit easy adaptation of the RNP to countries other than the U.S. The upside is that we've designed the RNP to use a range of wallwarts (see what's cool, above) instead of the pain-in-the-ass one used on the RNC.

The RNP is relatively noisy when evaluated by lab measurement. Many mic pres these days (including the really cheap ones) have very low noise floors (EINs of -127dB or better). The RNP's EIN of -120dB is obviously not as "good" as these others.

I decided that the sonic character (or lack thereof) and a decent price point were more important than the absolute noise floor. Why? First, many of the sought-after vintage mic pre noise levels are much worse than the RNPs. So in actual use, I concluded, many folks (particularly those "in-the-know") prefer good tone, even if it's slightly noisier. Second, even though we have internal versions of the RNP with a lower EIN, we'd have to charge at least $100 more for the privilege of meeting lab measurements that few actual applications would challenge. Third, the trend in microphone development has been to raise the output level of microphones, thereby reducing overall gain requirements of external mic pres. Are there some applications using the RNP that may be problematic? Yes. Will most of us encounter them? No.

The RNP has coarse gain steps of 6dB/step. Under ideal circumstances, when gain staging your signal path, you want to only use as much gain as necessary to do the job. Too much gain and you possibly run out of headroom. Too much or too little gain and you possibly get more noise than you'd like for a given application. So, why not use a gain pot or a switch with more positions to allow finer gain steps?

First, pots are notoriously inconsistent and imprecise for gain setting (see John Hardy's discussion of this) without using a two stage pot...one stage for low gains and the other for high gains. That's OK, but I personally don't like to have a "gain range" switch that can cause the gain to jump 30dB or more. This is primarily 'cause I've been known to inadvertently push the button at an inopportune time (don't tell anyone)! Second, 16 and more positions make for a very expensive switch. In an ideal world, I'd have a switch with an infinite number of steps to allow us to smoothly and precisely maximize the mic pre's dynamic range...allowing us to exactly dial-in the gain we need without too much noise or too low of a clip point.

Given these trade-offs, we've made the RNP with a twelve step switch. The lowest gain setting is 0 dB with a clip point of almost +28dBu. Each step then adds 6 dB of signal gain. Even though this requires that we (the users) are more careful in setting the maximum gain before clipping, its gain setting is a little less critical given the high pre-amp clip point. So, a user is likely to be more concerned with the signal being too hot further down the signal chain, at which point the signal can usually be attenuated to the appropriate level.

Of course, you can always get finer amplitude control by using an RNC in conjunction to your RNP. <<<END

All of you RNP lovers forgive me, please. I was only trying to help a dude pic a preamp.

Chris
Click to expand...

The guy is making a technical joke. The difference in the specs is sooooo insignificant. I have an RNP and it is as quiet as my Avalon.
 
chris-from-ky said:
The RNP is relatively noisy when evaluated by lab measurement. Many mic pres these days (including the really cheap ones) have very low noise floors (EINs of -127dB or better). The RNP's EIN of -120dB is obviously not as "good" as these others.
Click to expand...

-120db noisy? Well yeah, it's more than 4 times more noise than -127db... but shit mon, the average well aligned tape machine was -80/-90 on a good day. Have you hooked up a Marshall anything lately? If you get -40 you'll be stylin'... hell a good ol' Neve module will be lucky to net you -85...

In other words, these things are all relative. It never ceases to amaze me how people will take one thing from something and turn it into a federal case. Mark was being facetious when he wrote that the noise floor was -120 rather than -127... if you understood that specification you'd know that -120 is a seriously good measurement... but not quite up there with the specs the techno weenies who don't listen to things expect [a lot of the broadcast world is like that... more purchases in the broadcast world are made on a "price v. specifications" basis than by "listening"]. In real life, that's a way, way, way, way lower noise floor than probably anything else in your arsenal... but Mark illustrated the dumbass nature of the specification with a tongue and cheek remark and it gets taken to "oh, they say it's noisy"

A while ago I was asked to write a 'review' of the Toft ATC-2. In that 'review' I said that in comparison to mic pre's that cost $2,000+ per channel, the mic pre's in this $1,000 2 channel mic-pre, compressor, equalizer "suck". http://mercenary.com/flatre.html

Well duh.

I also went to great lengths to say how it was an unfair comparison... how I was comparing a GEO to a Ferrari and saying that in comparison the GEO handled like shit... but all sooooo many people took away from the entire article was "the mic pre's suck".

OK... I know... I'm venting a bit... work with me.

When you see a disparaging comment about a unit, I would implore you to dig a wee bit deeper to see if the author was being facitious or serious. The whole "the mic pre's suck" thing has me thinking twice about trying to put a modicum of tongue and cheek humor into the stuff I write... it, in many ways has made me understand why so many of the people who write for the audio trade seem to write like they have a stick up their ass.

Let's try to remember... this shit isn't world peace. If you fuck up, it's not the end of the world. We're making entertainment product, if we're not entertained during the course of making the product, how the fuck could a consumer possibly be entertained subsequent to the purchase of that product.

We got into this, either as a hobby, or as a career because it's fun. Lemme tell ya, even though I have to show up at my gig everyday, and I mostly work in an office with a desk that has no knobs and a phone that won't stop ringing... I fucking love going to work. It beats the snot out of having a "real job". On those days when I'm working in a different office where the desk does have a ton of knobs, where I have to make on the order of 2-300 decisions an hour [yeah, it's probably that many... more at the front, fewer during the process, a whole fucking lot of them when it get's down to mix time], it's not quite as good as good sex, but it beats the hell out of a random "quicky"... in other words, it's just fucking fun. It's like getting paid [well!!] to hang out with my friends and fuck off. How you can get "serious" during that process [fortunately] alludes me... but apparently a lot of the brothers do.

Thanks for letting me vent a bit... hmmmm... WTF, am I taking this too seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top