I own and use both of the pre-amps that you mentioned.

I find the RNP is unique in that there is an audible extension in the high frequencies. Not a frequency boost... more as if the ceiling in your room is lifted off, and you can now see the very fine misty trails of the Milky Way. I love what it does to the SM-57 on some tracks. I really dig this pre-amp's DI section too. I'd go as far as saying that as a DI box alone, it's worth the money. Solid low-end. It couples well with the RNC (Really Nice Compressor)... but a lot of gear does. FMR Audio is a solid company, you bet they'll stand behind their gear too.

I also like my Sytek a lot. Very useful for fast-transients (drums, acoustic guitar). Though sometimes, I find them a tad too sterile. Well heck, reach for the NV then. I have the Burr-Brown op-amp upgrade on Channels 3 and 4 and love what they do on vocals (pleasant slight smoothing). Definitely a good value for the less than the $800 paid. I really wish it had an insert, better metering, or more features in the front (HPF, for one)... but I've accepted it for what it is. Four channels of very fast, fairly clean-sounding pre-amps without breaking the bank. Also, Mike Stoica stands 100% behind his stuff. Cool guy to talk to.

If you need a pre for drums mostly, but want a pre with two sonic signatures... I'd see check out the Sytek first (with BB option).

For more flexibility/options and a different flavor (good DI too), the RNP is what I'd go for.

Check 'em out, if possible.

Bowisc

Hello I'm new and would like to say thanks for the opportunity to read and post.

I am a musician who has been dabbling in home recording for years. Very humble setup. Occasionally I will go to a pro studio when I want to do something above demo level.

Recently though my son has given me a Roland VS 1880 and I am getting more into my home studio. My next step is to invest in a mic pre to use with my SM58. I'm willing to spend up to a grand. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Some have already said that the RNP might be my best bet but since I've got the grand I was just wondering what else might be better. Mainly I'll be using it for voice or trombone. Someone else suggested a Manley single channel for slightly more at around $1,300.

Thanks again

I have the RNP and use it all the time, you wont be disappointed in its sound quality. If you desire more of a channel strip type unit with EQ and compression (you could add a RNC compressor) I would check out the new Toft atc-2, it looks very promising and is under the price of the $1300 manley.
I've used a Manley Vox Box a bit, and they are wonderful, so the manley channel strip is probably a keeper also, but there are many other offerings such as those from Davisound that are as good for less.

Thanks Tom.

Thanks for the help. I think Im going to be purchasing a sytek pretty soon here to upgrade from my Mackies XDR preamps and my Joemeek VC1q. The RNP sounds very interesting though and I'd like to check one out. Sounds like it would be great for overheads or maybe Kick and snare.

one more question:
Is it true that the Syteks have limited headroom? I read this in some google forums and wasnt sure if this was true. Any help in clarifing this would help a lot.

Thanks

Originally posted by AndyHeisler:
one more question:
Is it true that the Syteks have limited headroom? I read this in some google forums and wasnt sure if this was true. Any help in clarifing this would help a lot.

Thanks

Yes, you may need an inline pad (Shure, for example) if you're going to mic high-SPL sources.

Bowisc

I just purchased the RNP to go with my Roland VS1880 recorder. As I mentioned in my post above I am not an engineer but a musician making demo's at home for myself.

My question regards how to set the the proper balance between the gain settings of the RNP and that of the Roland. For example; should I set the Roland to say 12 o'clock and then adjust the RNP to that? Also should I lower the source level if the +18(yellow)indictor on the RNP lights up ocassionally so that it will not light?

Would appreciate any additional advice on how to uses this gear properly.

Thanks

Originally posted by Lincoln Ross:

.... should I set the Roland to say 12 o'clock and then adjust the RNP to that?

If you have an insert send/return on the Roland, the RNP should be plugged into that, bypassing the preamp circuitry in the Roland. Then set the RNP so you get a level of around -6dB on the recorder. If there are no inserts on the Roland, bring the RNP into the line input and adjust the RNP as you described ...,

should I lower the source level if the +18(yellow)indictor on the RNP lights up occasionally so that it will not light?

... and then back it off just a bit. Then adjust the input on the Roland to show a level of -6dB on the recorder... Kurt

Thanks a lot Kurt. As you noticed I mistakenly typed RNC instead of RNP a couple times. I edited it anyway. (By the way some have suggested that I might want to get the compressor also. I must confess I'm not exactly sure what a compressor does? I'll mainly be using my RNP to record vocals and trombone so do you think the compressor is something that might be useful in my situation.)

There is no insert send/return on the Roland so I must plug the RNP into the line/mic input. Before I got the RNP I had to turn the input knob almost all the way up to get a good level. Now if I turn the knob to slightly over 12 o'clock and set the RNP gain knob to the 48db position the Roland level will be the same as it used to be with the input knob almost all the way up.

Thanks again

Linclon,
Those are just numbers meant to give you a visual reference. Typically they are inaccurate so essentially they don't mean a thing.. Set the levels as I described. That's the way to do it. I will edit the quotes I made to reflect your edits...

A compressor would be a good thing. Compressors control the dynamic range of a signal, which is the difference between how soft and loud a signal is. Real world dynamics are as high as 160dB. Modern recording systems a capable of a dynamic range of 100dB so you see compression is necessary. By limiting how loud a signal can go it allows the recordist to bring the lower level signals to a louder point making everything in a mix more easily heard and helping to prevent overload and distortion... Kurt

By limiting how loud a signal can go it allows the recordist to bring the lower level signals to a louder point making everything in a mix more easily heard and helping to prevent overload and distortion... Kurt

Now I understand. Many thanks! Have a great weekend. :)

You can go to this link and hear the RNP against quite a few other studio pres. I found it to be very helpful.

OY VEY!!!

Lincoln, you can't bypass the vs preamp, unless you go digital in, which is not an option with the rnp, you have to turn the vs input gain all the way down and adjust your gain with the rnp, this is as close as you will come to bypassing the vs pre's.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Real world dynamics are as high as 160dB. Modern recording systems a capable of a dynamic range of 100dB so you see compression is necessary.

Real world? How often do you mic a 747 at 6 feet?

For a thousand dollars, you could get the RNP and still have a few bucks left over for a decent large diaphram condenser mic.. That would make a bigger difference in your recordings than a better pre and a 57...D

Hi Lincoln from a fellow 1880 slave. :D

FYI, the only way to fully bypass the VS's pre's is by going in through one of the digital inputs. You can significantly minimize their use by turning the trim pots fully counter clock wise and use your RNP for the majority of the gain. The RNP should have more than enough juice to adequately drive the signal on the VS.

Kurt's right about a compressor. I've got a pair of the RNC's and they're great. With the correct cable (tip-ring-sleeve) the RNC can be used as an insert to your RNP or any other pre that has insert jacks. I use the RNC's as insert's to a pair of VTB-1's and the combination handily tames the peaks.

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for the additional info. I did get the RNC to go with the RNP as Kurt suggested. Also as a father's day gift my grown kids suprised me with a Rode NT 1000 microphone. All dad's should be so blessed.

Now all I have to do is learn how to use all this stuff properly. :D I have noticed that unless I turn the RNP all the way up I do need raise the input knobs on the VS 1880 to about 12 o'clock to get the signal to register at -12db and above on the Roland. This is with the RNP set to 48db.(And that is almost all the way up) As Kurt mentioned above these numbers are just suppose to be for reference so I'll just keep fiddling with the settings until I think it sounds best. As for the RNC there are a lot more settings but I think I am beginning to get the hang of it. The idea is to guard against the occassional peaks during a performance. Right?

Lincoln -

Wow, what great kids! I hope my daughters are like that when they're grown up.

I don't have an RNP but I'm surprised to hear you have to crank it way up to get some signal to the VS. You might wish to pursue VS related issues and questions on connections with it over at the VS Planet. If you're not already a member, I highly recommend it. RO's a wonderful resource but I think you'll get more detailed VS help at the VS Planet. Membership is of course free and there's a dedicated 1680/1880 forum for things just like this. A number of VS'ers also have the RNP and can probably help you get things figured out in no time. Come on over, but always keep RO bookmarked! ;)

The VS Planet is found [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.vsplanet…"]here.[/]="http://www.vsplanet…"]here.[/]

Oh, and yes, an RNC (or any compressor really) is often used during recording to tame the peaks that would otherwise push a signal into digital distortion.

Skeetch,

Thanks for the link. I will definately join up over at VS Planet also. I need all the help I can get with the VS 1880 for sure. I tried out the automation the other day and got a bit tangled up but I love this machine it's really quite amazing. I've been working with mine for about six months now, how about you?

I've had mine for nearly two years, but worked with a 1680 for a little over a year before that. So I've been VS'ing for a little while now. I'm starting to outgrow the 1880 and will probably be looking to move on to something else within the year. Looking at a variety of different platforms - Tascam SX-1, one of the Radar systems, or something similar. Not sure yet.

Automix can be a little tricky. I've tried it on a couple of occasions. It's a great concept but I found it fairly cumbersome.

I'm curious why you're not considering the VS 2480?

Well, I've thought about that.

I feel as though I've gotten to know the Roland Corporation and it's products fairly well over the past 5 or so years. Some of their stuff is top notch, others less so. The VS systems are fine for what they were designed to do. IMO, that is to enable musicians to record themselves in a way that they never could have done back in the days of the old multitrack cassette machines. I came from those machines and at first found the VS machines to be an amazing leap in technology and capability (which they truly were at the time). Still, I don't think the VS's can ever take the place of a full blown professional studio.

Once in awhile, you'll hear about one of the pro's recording a fair chunk of an album on a VS - Victor Wooten's Yin and Yang album comes most notably to mind - and some of the things that the Planeteers have done with their machines is pretty darn good IMO. I've recorded a fair number of demo's for bands and even have a couple of very good local groups wanting to do their next albums with me at the recording helm. These will likely be done on the 1880.

As you may discover in your journey with the 1880, there's a kind of love/hate relatioship that comes with owning a VS. The same is true of other companies as well, but Roland seems especially intransigent about some of the problems its customers face with their products.

With regard to the 2480's, there's just been too many "issues" with them for me to consider getting one. I'm outgrowing the 1880 and would like to investigate another format that doesn't use compression, doesn't have 2.1 Gb partition limitations, can do more than 8 inputs at once, doesn't take forever to recover a backed up song, and a host of other quirks/limitations I've come to find increasingly annoying. Oh, and it can't be PC or Mac based either. I deal with computers all day long at the day job and the LAST thing I want to do in the studio is have more computer hassles.

That said, I still think the VS's have provided us frustrated musician/recordist types with capability we never would have dreamed of 10 years ago. I've learned alot about recording over the past 5 years (still have alot more to learn) and the VS machines have played a significant role in that education. Even after moving on to some other format, I may keep the VS for the ocassional live show recording as it's quite portable.

Anyway, sorry for the dissertation. Just my two pence.

Quote from Ckevperry-
"How often do you mic a 747 at 6 feet?"

You know, I hear that 747s are actually an electric/acoustic combo with a piezo mic near the turbo fan. Of course you have to use a windscreen... :D :D :D Doc