Proper placment is a given in my book. Moving a mic does change the sound. Different pres and mics also effect the sound. I have noticed that people who don't have a lot of chioces with pres or mics rely more on placment alone. They really don't have much of a choice, do they? I personaly don't think that either can replace the other.

Correct placment and mic and pre choice are all integral to a great sound. I don't think that a crap pre and a crap mic can be overcome with placement. If this were the case, there would not be companies manufacturing high quality mics and pres.

All that being said, I would prefer to hear this comparison performed with a mic that is a known quanity and an industry standard. This is why I suggested an 87. I don't much care for them because they are very flat sounding. But that is best IMO for a pre comparison. I want to hear what the pres are doing, not the mic. The Shure has a presence peak at about 7 to 9 k while the Neumann is reasonably flat.. But we are going to have to go with what Yon has. I suppose we should ask Yon what is available first, huh?

On top of all the other variables to fairly judge this, I suppose this will end up in a MP3?

My U87 has so much hyped top end that you would never notice a hyped 7k.

The U87 is a VERY colored mic IMO which is both its claim to fame (built in air) and its downfall (on digital recordings its a bit too much at times).

Once again I don't care what mic is used, this type of comparison is pointless (and it cannot really be done fairly).

When you turn the gain up does it hiss a lot? How hard can you hit it before it breaks up?

Thats about all I need to know about a $250 comp. After that if it is in my closet I will try it and see how it fits in certain mixes etc...

Who cares how it compares to other pres?

Steve

Originally posted by sdevino:

Who cares how it compares to other pres?

Steve

Steve, if you bothered to read this thread "title" you would see who cares. Also, the 20 + threads in the archives.

Treena

I have read it and I have made the point several times that comparing pre's in some kind of quasi shoot out is really a waste of time.

My point is if it is well made then all that matters is does it work with what you are recording. Listening to how someone else used it does not tell me a lot about how it will sound in my mix.

Steve

Hey folks, participation here is COMPLETELY voluntary. If you have no interest in a thread, or if it seems redundant to you, then simply do not participate. It's not that big of a deal, really. PLEASE let others converse and get their opinions out in the open without making them feel like it's a waste of their time. I have an RNP and read every thread that surrounds it, and never grow tired of the information gleaned from them. Please put out the flames that keep popping up around here on this topic. Thanks.

Steve, I agree with you. And I would NEVER make a buying decision just from a shootout or from what I read in a mag or on a newsgroup. But I have found that shootouts still have some value and when done well and controlled, they give me an insight of one product compared to another product. It is a small piece of info from the whole pie in which one can use to help narrow down the choices. It still doesn't replace having the product and using it.

Originally posted by Jamie Smith:
Hey folks, participation here is COMPLETELY voluntary. If you have no interest in a thread, or if it seems redundant to you, then simply do not participate. It's not that big of a deal, really. PLEASE let others converse and get their opinions out in the open without making them feel like it's a waste of their time. I have an RNP and read every thread that surrounds it, and never grow tired of the information gleaned from them. Please put out the flames that keep popping up around here on this topic. Thanks.

AMEN

Originally posted by Jamie Smith:
Hey folks, participation here is COMPLETELY voluntary. If you have no interest in a thread, or if it seems redundant to you, then simply do not participate. It's not that big of a deal, really. PLEASE let others converse and get their opinions out in the open without making them feel like it's a waste of their time. I have an RNP and read every thread that surrounds it, and never grow tired of the information gleaned from them. Please put out the flames that keep popping up around here on this topic. Thanks.

Of course we are semi-free to ask any questions we want. (Within limits set by ownership and moderators, of course.)

Aisde from the merits of this particular discussion, I think in general it is important to not be so quick to discard the thoughts of someone who points out that "maybe you are asking the wrong question".

I welcome anyone who helps me get "out of the box" of confined thinking. So Jamie, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree and say "Bravo" to Steve: keep 'em coming!. (insert musical notes to indicate song lyric): ...I love whatcha do when you do watcha do to me...

Personally, I'm probably somewhat in the AudioGaff camp on this issue. Shootouts are over-rated and can be badly misused and should be viewed with suspician. BUT - a well-controlled and properly conducted one can give you some ideas or at least narrow a crowded field for further personal research. A sliver of the pie, if I can misquote AG.

Lots of good points here. I remember when I first heard Kurts pre amp MP3 comparison. My first thought upon listening was to fatten up the thinner sounding pres with a UAD-1 Pultec to make them sound near identical to the higher quality ones. There's something to be said about not having to do that of course. Anyway, I guess my point is that there is more than one way to skin a cat and mic placement is certainly one as well. I have an assortment of high end guitars laying around the studio for folks to use. Anyone of them would do a good job but it's nice to have choices. Sometimes an old cheap archtop will do the trick when a better guitar sounds too refined. I view pres the same way. If it's useful to you then it has value. A shootout wouldn't change this fact. It would reveal however the differing characters of each pre so that one could decide what would work best for the sound they're going for.

Whoa! Had no idea this would grow to be so controversial! Sorry about that, was never the intent. I've read most of the archives, and the sebatron and jlm seem to be fairly new after all the cinders from the rnp talk had cooled down. Since those are the 3 preamps that I'm looking at, that's why I posed the question. Breaking the "Good preamp" virginity is an expensive one for a laymen, so I'm trying (Like anyone else) to make sure the purchase makes the most sense for my intended purpose(s). Eventually I'd like to have them all, but to start I'm interested in getting the most mileage possible.

Thank you everyone for your interest and responses, and once again sorry to those with feathers ruffled!

Thanks to all here. Great points and comments indeed.

My comments weren't directed at Steve at all, swan. In fact, his point absolutely gave much meaning and validity to yet another discussion of the RNP, and proves my point that the same topic can never be discussed too many times.

Sorry, Jamie, for misinterpreting your post.

Dontcha just hate it when that happens? :h:

a well-controlled and properly conducted shootout can give you some ideas or at least narrow a crowded field for further personal research. A sliver of the pie, if I can misquote AG.

Permmision Granted.

dontcha just love make-ups?

Originally posted by sdevino:
Besides moving a mic 1/2" will change the sound a lot more than switching pre's will.

So how do I teach this to my vocalists? Is there a free resource to learn mic technique?

I'm still cutting my teeth on an AT3050 into OMNI Studio Pre's comped by an RNC. And I have messed so many vocals up, through inexperience, that I have mastered my gear and can get a decent demo quality take from it.

Now its time for me to take a step up, quality wise.

Step #1: mic booth and room acoustics.
#2 vocal techniques
#3 mic and pre
#4 A/D converters

I agree, Kurt is super-opinionated. But I value the hell out of his opinion. And Audiogaff's. And anyone else with experience. That's generally how I improved myself as a person, absorbing the knowledge given to me by those with more than myself (and even those with less than myself).

When I do reach step #3 above, you better believe that I'm going to take into account all that I've learned from Kurt. I look at it as the closest I'll get to a studio apprenticeship anytime soon, since the DAW age has killed that practice (according to Kurt... uhh i think :confused: )

A personal thanks here Kurt. An opinion based on nothing is the ultimate in ignorance, but your opinion is definitely well grounded in experience and study of the topic at hand.

And when I get my Sebatron Kurt :wink: , I'll see you on the other side!

mitz

So how do I teach this to my vocalists? Is there a free resource to learn mic technique?

What you can and should do is to educate your clients. Show them a plot of a polar pattern of the type you will working with, and explain/show them that when they sing outside that pattern the level and tone of their voice changes. Educate them on how control and consistantcy in their vocal performance means less time spent trying to correct that latter. If you have a sample of the bad vocal recording, let them listen as you point out the changes. If you have the ability to video record them performing, you will then be able to show them what they are doing right and wrong. Learning proper mic technique has more to do with practice experience. It requires that the person know some basic vocal techniques. Make sure they have a good headphone monitor feed. Proper vocal mic technique takes a lot of time and practice and you may have to struggle with them until they have learned and are confortable doing studio recording. Many that can belt out a tune with a mic through a PA system, just plain choke when it comes time to doing recording. Being comfortable and confident hearing ones own voice with a mic and headphones takes time to get used to and is required to get a decent vocal performance worth recording.

Good advice Gaff Thx. I'm gonna start applying those tips immediately!

mitz

Don't be afraid to try recording without headphones, you can set it up so that when the speakers play music in the same room the singer and mic is in, it bearly get's picked up by the mic. I think Bono of U2 does this.

I think (if I remember correctly) you place two speakers playing the same signal (like pushing the "mono" button on your bus channel - if you have that) and place the singer with the mic somewhere in between. you could be sitting on a couch with the mic in hand if that's what's most comfortable for the singer. But the trick is to place one speaker out of phase (or reverse polarity), so that when the two speakers signals hit the mic, they cancel out mostly. I've not tried this myself with singers but I've heard lots of people say it works well. Some people will place the performance as a much greater priority and comfort level is definately important.

Just a suggestion though!

hmmmm... interesting! So in this scenario, wouldn't room acoustics wreck havoc on phase cancellation?

That depends. Obviously in some cases it won't work that great, just every other 'technique'.. you'll have to try it yourself to find out.

Originally posted by Yon:
Don't be afraid to try recording without headphones, you can set it up so that when the speakers play music in the same room the singer and mic is in, it bearly get's picked up by the mic. I think Bono of U2 does this.

I think (if I remember correctly) you place two speakers playing the same signal (like pushing the "mono" button on your bus channel - if you have that) and place the singer with the mic somewhere in between. you could be sitting on a couch with the mic in hand if that's what's most comfortable for the singer. But the trick is to place one speaker out of phase (or reverse polarity), so that when the two speakers signals hit the mic, they cancel out mostly. I've not tried this myself with singers but I've heard lots of people say it works well. Some people will place the performance as a much greater priority and comfort level is definately important.

Just a suggestion though!

This is a method that Nashville engineering and producing ledgend, Jack Clement, who hates headphones, came up with. He recorded a lot of the guys from Sun Records as well as a lot of C&W. He produced "Ring Of Fire" for Johnny Cash, recorded "She Thinks I Still Care", for George Jones, discovered Charlie Pride, the first Black singer to break the "color barrier" in Nashville.. and owned two of the more successful studios, "The Barn" and "The Cowboy Arms", in the Nashville recording scene in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

"Cowboy" Jack Clement was responsible for recording the "Million Dollar Trio" recordings. (Elvis, Cash and Jerry Lee). Elvis and Cash happened to show up at a Jerry Lee Lewis recording date at Sun in late '55 and things quicky turned into a jam session. Clement, sitting in the recording booth, thinks to himself, "I think I would be remiss, if I didn't record this." Having four mics already set up in the room, he reached over and hit record on the tape machine and the rest is history.

The trick is to set the mic and the speakers in a perfect triangle. The distances are critical. It has to be a perfect equilateral triangle, a mono signal and then place one speaker out of phase so that when the sound from the speakers reaches the mic, it cancels out.

[ November 08, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Kurt Foster ]

A quick and easy fix for those singers who simply move 'off' the mic from side to side,which causes tonal variations,especially in cardioid patterns,is to move the mic 'up' a bit.Make em reach upward to sing.There are two very nice results from this also...One: their voice path opens up and they have to use their diaphram in a more efficient way resulting in better pitch control and dynamics, and Two:the bleed from the phones goes way down.

Originally posted by Davedog:
A quick and easy fix for those singers who simply move 'off' the mic from side to side,which causes tonal variations,especially in cardioid patterns,is to move the mic 'up' a bit.Make em reach upward to sing.There are two very nice results from this also...One: their voice path opens up and they have to use their diaphram in a more efficient way resulting in better pitch control and dynamics, and Two:the bleed from the phones goes way down.

I always thought that the throat was more open when you tucked you chin into your chest, like the opera singers do, when reaching for high notes. this extends the vocal cords instead of making them shorter.

As was suggested on these same boards once, the best way to keep a singer from moving in and out of the mic is to duct tape their heads to a wall. ...... :D

[ November 08, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Kurt Foster ]

You guys do know a lot more than I about recording, but I think I got the singing stuff covered.

Actually, you're both wrong. :)
Chin up causes tension in the neck and back of the neck,as well as in the face and therefore can lead to straining and vocal fatigue quite quickly. In your defense, A LOT of great rock singers had tone that was a result of that tension. It's not "Good" technique but can give a great rock result. Unfortunately, the side effect is that by straining muscles to accomplish an effect, the muscles used (like all muscles) wear out with age. That's often why range drops and wider and wider vibrato appears- the muscles can't maintain integrity. For women its the really wide vibrato- think of the church choir seniors - I call it the "Aunt Bea" syndrome.

BTW - Often misunderstood. The diaphragm is an INVOLUNTARY muscle. You can learn to control the stomach and intercostal (rib) muscles to allow it to do its job more efficiently but that's about it. Anybody saying otherwise doesn't understand anatomy.

Kurt,
Chin dropped and jaw open is good- BUT - chin to chest causes compression against the pharynx and tension in the back of the neck and it usually causes singers to pull their tongue back blocking the very opening you want sound to come out of. Most people don't think about it, but the tongue is actually connected several inches lower than the back of your throat. It can act like a mute in the bell of a horn.

Healthiest technique for long term:
(Rock/pop etc. can break these rules short term. But to paraphrase Cecil B DeMille - "You don't break the rules, you break yourself against the rules"

1. Standing Up - body in alignment
2. Rib cage High - this allows diaphragm to work properly -( hands on hips - leave shoulders there and drop your arms without lowering shoulders- there's a lot of bone/muscle weight thats working against gravity)Then breathe as you do when you sleep - the stomach should move OUT on inhale and IN on exhale. Ribs and Shoulders shouldn't move!
3. Yawn feeling in mouth with tongue against lower teeth.
4. Eyes and chin forward and jaw dropped

Hope this helps clear things up

Phil

Oh, and by the way, when they can't do that and all else fails - just duct tape their head!

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:

"Cowboy" Jack Clement was responsible for recording the "Million Dollar Trio" recordings. (Elvis, Cash and Jerry Lee). Elvis and Cash happened to show up at a Jerry Lee Lewis recording date at Sun in late '55 and things quicky turned into a jam session.

That was actually called the Million Dollar Quartet, Carl Perkins was there too. If you were going to only name three, it would have to be elvis, lewis and perkins. Cash was there for very little of the session.

Has anyone been checking out the RNP samples that Kurt was put up? It's in the "Reviews" forum.

Yeah I checked it out, though something doesn't seem clear... There are 8 clips all together, 1, 3, 5, and 7 are all using the RNP... so why do they sound different? (progressively smoother and more body/low-end). I could only imagine I'm either mistaken or that the mic/guitar positions shifted around a bit, or that kurt didn't let the RNP warm up before using it...

As it says in the manual, for optimal performance they reccommend to let it sit before using it - something like 5 or 15 minutes. Any clarification on any of this?

I cut the demo up and imported 8 seperate tracks onto Sonar. The peaks on the 4 RNP samples range from 3.1 to 4.9. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th comparson's being the closest. I like the 4th RNP example [vs Great River] the best. It reaches the highest peak [3.1] on this example. Hard to acount for spikes, though.

I think the RNP sounds better on the later comparisons.

Bruce P.

I meant that the RNP's later examples sounded better than RNP earlier examples. As far as levels, I have for comparison #1] RNP @-4.9, M??kie @-4.2 #2] RNP @-5.8, 9098 @-5.5, #3] RNP @-5.6, Sebatron @ 2.9 #4] RNP @ -3.1, Great River @ -2.6.

Definately RNP's sound is much more full bodied at -5.6 on comparison #3 than it is ar -4.9 on comparison #1.

I think it's important to only compare the mics within each performance.. that is, compare the RNP to the Mackie, RNP to the 9098, the RNP to the vmp4000e and RNP to the MP2NV. It would be cool if I could figure out a way to place 5 matching mics all in the same place and record all four with the same performance... that would help but I don't have 5 matching sd condensers. What I found the most interesting was the comparison of the RNP to the Mackie pre. What do all of you think of that? What are your impressions?

I suspect what we hear is difference in performance ... I did my best to keep placement the same.. I will be recording some other things too and I will add those clips to the ones already posted so keep an eye on that post.. I may redo the guitar clips and try to get a more consistant performance. I have 3 matching AKG 451's, perhaps I should use them and record 3 at a time?
Any ideas are welcome! Maybe I should use the omni capsules on the C4's instead to remove any proximity effects?

I thought against the Mackie was the RNP's weakest showing, though the RNP seemed somewhat more 'present'to my ear.
I thought that the way it sounded compared to the other 3 was even more interesting considering it's price.
I'm glad you got ahold of the RNP. What a great thing to do!
How about comparisons of other controversial [pro-sumer or high end?] type of gear. Maybe a Lynx 2 sound card?

Coats,
Thanks to Fletcher from [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.mercenar…"]Mercenary Audio[/]="http://www.mercenar…"]Mercenary Audio[/] for getting me a RNP to use.. At last all of this can be put to rest.

A comparison of soundcards would be something the folks in the DAW / Computing forum would do if it were to be done at all..

I found the Mackie to the RNP comparison the most interesting also.. with the Mackie being warmer sounding to me.. keep in mind that the Mackie was a worst case scenario, through the whole channel strip and bused out of one of the 1 -4 subs.

Any one else?

First off, I really appreciate Phil supplying such insight into singing techniques. It does me good . . .

Originally posted by ozraves:
I like my FMR RNP. The thing I like it with most of all is mic'ing acoustic guitar. I like the flavor and sonic fidelity.

Right now, I've got a Millennia TD-1, Grace 101, A Designs MP-2, Great River MP-2NV and a Sebatron vmp-2000e in the rack. I'm not going to say the RNP is the best pre of the bunch. But, I've never thought once about selling it. It's got a nice flavor and quality fidelity that I like. For me, I like it on acoustic guitar so that's where it gets a lot of use.

Steve

I'm curious as to why you'd choose the R N Pre over the Great River for acoustic guitar ~ is it the mix you're putting it into? Were it solo, would you choose differently?

I have a pair of RNPs, but am deeply considering the Great River because I'd like something Nevilish particularly for Acoustic Guitars . . . what is your thinking regarding using them together as well?

Thank you, Kurt, for the audio examples . . . I wonder if the point about the console preamps might be that we've heard them so much on so many albums, especially in project circles, that we're used to them . . . maybe a collective unconscious response to the good songs and playing we've heard recorded on them. Food for thought . . .

Happy New Year

Originally posted by Perikoresis:
I wonder if the point about the console preamps might be that we've heard them so much on so many albums, especially in project circles, that we're used to them . . . maybe a collective unconscious response to the good songs and playing we've heard recorded on them. Food for thought . . .
Happy New Year

In have had the same thoughts before... do we think something "sounds" good simply because it is what we are used to hearing and associating with "good"?

I can say that the stuff we all covet like vintage Neves and APIs, that are percived to "sound good", are easier to mix when multiple tracks are combined. Examples like the comparisons I have posted are only a small portion of the picture. That is why I also try to post complete songs tracked with pres of the same type... the way things combine at mix is so much more important.

Originally posted by Perikoresis:
I'm curious as to why you'd choose the R N Pre over the Great River for acoustic guitar ~ is it the mix you're putting it into? Were it solo, would you choose differently?

Not to speak for Steve, but I dig my great river on my lead voice, for bass, and on my kick. the RNP is my choice for stereo Acoustic guit, (or mono) for my piano, any backing vocals (especially big layered choruses) and drum overheads.

the reasoning for me is, the RNP is very clean and airy. when stacked in the overall mix, it offsets the heavy upfront sound of the Neve thing. lead vocals, bass, and kick gives me the heavy upfront sound I like coming through in my music.

as a singer/songwriter/multi-instrumentalist I approach the dynamics of my playing in my music and approach the same delicate/intimacy in my choice of pre placement. to me the combination of the two gives me those options.

since you already have 2 RNP's, maybe look into the ME-1NV ($1000.00) single channel version and you'll have some nice options with the opportunity to add yet another single channel pre flavor as you continue to grow (John Hardy, Daking, Chandler, etc.)

I have 3 matching AKG 451's, perhaps I should use them and record 3 at a time?
Any ideas are welcome!

You need to be able to use one mic with multi-outs into the preamps and then match the gain as close as possible. Get one one of those Tech Talk boys to build you a box. You might even be able to get some insight from Dan at Great River who I believe was invloved with the 3D mic pre CD shootout.

AG,
It seems to me any splitter is going to affect the signal in some manner... transformers will distort and color the signal and an active split will too.. I used 2 sd condensers placed next to each other as closley as possible in this last round..

Well you know that even 2 mics even close together is not going to be exactly the same and it is only two mics. Whatever affect the splitter has will at least be common and the same going to all mic pre's. Again, I'd ask Dan at GR as I think he help either design and or build the box used for the 3D mic pre CD.

Or better yet, see if EveAnna can loan you one of her new toys made specific for this.
http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/micutilitybox.html