I actually liked the rnp (gasp!).It seemed cleaner than all the other pres...My second favorite was the Sebie. I wouldn't track a whole song with it (RNP) but I liked it on acoustic..Too much warmth on each track equals mud to me..Couple that guitar with a nice warm vox and you would have something..

Ray

No offense to Lynn Fuston because I think he is an extremely credible guy, but I do not think it is possible to really do a commercial comparison CD.

The singer never sings the same way twice, if you use multiple mics at once they are each being used in a different part of their performance range, the wires may be different the humidity could change over time etc etc etc

In general A/B comparisons should be looked upn as "subjective" analysis for a given situation rather than objective measurement. i.e. You try a couple of mic/pre combos for a given track and pick the combo you like best at that time for that artist.

OR

You just listen carefully to the mic or pre you are analyzing and pay close attention to its individual character.

Steve

Just listening to the samples this is my thoughts.
1 & 2 The mackie had more depth to it than the RNP. I was supprised by that. I though it sounded much better that the RNP.
3&4 The AMEK Was way better sounding the RNP thin AMEK nice and round sounding.
4&5 The Seb smoked it Fat and full sounding. It was at this point that I realize that it was the midrange frequencies that I didn't like in the RNP.
6&7 The Great River was realy realy sweet sounding again no contest. RNP :td:

Originally posted by Perikoresis:

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?

The Great River NV series might be my favorite pre. The more I use one the more I appreciate the sound and versatility. I think it's got a different image and adjustable levels of color from relatively clean to heavy color.

Also the MP2NV has impedance and loading switching for even more versatility. I too become more and more enamored with the MP2NV the more I use it. A rack full of these things would be killer..

Hopefully I'll get new monitors soon, which could quite possibly change my views... but, on both my current setup and on headphones I have these opinions:

1/2 RNP vs. Mackie - the mackie is a bit warmer and mellow, but the RNP seemed a bit more crisp... I like the RNP a tiny bit more, I think... I couldn't see buying an RNP if you already had a mackie, though - the difference isn't big enough to warrant the $500... so, I guess it is comparable (albeit a bit different)..!

3/4 RNP vs. 9098 - this confirmed how bad I want an Amek Neve 9098... it is VERY noticeable that the Neve is a better preamp - fuller and more professional sound to my ear... the RNP clip after the 9098 clip sounds like the worst of the RNP clips - probably because of 9098?

5/6 RNP vs Seb - This one really surprised me... prior to listening, I was absolutely set on getting a Seb this summer, and disappointed that I "settled" for a RNP last year... but, after hearing this, the Seb sounds a little muddy to my ear especially when the lower strings are used, as compared to the others... and added maybe a *tiny* bit too much "preamp sound" to the guitar, for my taste...

7/8 RNP vs MP2NV - the MP2NV is like the 9098 - noticeably better than the RNP... the 9098 did seem a bit fuller, though, making the MP2NV my second choice, overall...

Death addeR,
Don't forget however that the Sebatron has the lo cut, air and bright settings.. so you can get it quite a bit brighter if you wish. Speaking from my expierence, the vmp is a great pre for acoustic guitars..

My thoughts on the RNP Demo:

It was evident the Great river sounded the best of all the samples. Next up the sebatron, warm sounding but not muddy. If I owned a mackie I wouldn't by the RNP. The difference was not great enough to warrant the price tag. Save up and buy the single channel Great River for $500.oo more. A noticable improvement.

Originally posted by jonesey:
My thoughts on the RNP Demo:

It was evident the Great river sounded the best of all the samples. Next up the sebatron, warm sounding but not muddy. If I owned a mackie I wouldn't by the RNP. The difference was not great enough to warrant the price tag. Save up and buy the single channel Great River for $500.oo more. A noticable improvement.

Yeah! At over a $1000 less the Sebatron vmp 4000e offers 4 channels instead of 2 like the Great River. To my mind the Sebatron is the pre for the budget conscious. I concur that the Great River is delicious if price is no object. I would love to have a rack full of MP2NV’s..

Kurt where are you getting a $1000 difference?

The difference I see is only $600, and THAT's if you buy it from mercenary!

Perhaps you were thinking of the 2 channel Seb and not the 4?

FWIW, ever since Sebatron raised it's prices it has dramatically reduced my interest in them.

They are now approaching prices of some other well-known pres IMO. Yes they are less channels, but it is still a "price point."

Cheers :c:

MP2NV is about $2750 .. I believe.
the Sebatron vmp 4000e is $1650 last time I checked and is a 4 channel unit vs the NVs 2 channels.. Please correct me if I am wrong about either..

I believe you're quoting the list.

The GR MP-2NV sells for $2150.

Wes,
That's at Mercenary? Good to know, because I really want to try to purchase the one I have here.

BUT the Sebatron is still a four channel unit. Even at $1750, retail that breaks down to $437.50 per channel while the NV is $1075.

Is the NV worth that much more? Absolutly but some people have to think of economy and the Sebatron fills that niche very well and sounds waaay better than an RNP...

To my ear the sound of the Mackie was clearly inferior to the other three pres,it seemed less full bodied,thinner and with no distinct tone.I did not think it sounded awful though,and all things considered I'd say it is probably the best enginneered pre of the four.Just not the best sounding,what is the cost of the parts in that thing,maybe five dollars.

I've never heard an Amek/Neve to my knowledge before but I must admit that is a beautiful sound,very unique to my ear,dark but refined.
Clearly distinct from the other three which all were fairly bright.I think if that's what you want then that's what you have to pay for.It's more like the work of an artist than an engineer.

The Great River sounded terrific but in my experienece where it really kicks out is with electric guitar rather than acoustic.It sounded noticiably better than the RNP but not by as much as the price difference might suggest.It's a close call between the Amek and the Great River But in my book they are one and two,with the RNP third.I will be interested in hearing how the RNP sounds with electric guitar.

Kurt,my take is that your initial perception was basicaly correct,the RNP *is* better than the Mackie but not so much better that I'd buy one if I already own a Mackie board.I *would* consider buying one as a relatively inexpensive way to get decent recordings straight to disk If I didn't need a board.I might actually actually find a comparison between the Presonus,the Sytek,and the RNP a little more telling.To me those are it's real competitors.

I know a place where you can purchase a two channel Great River preamp for 1970.00 dollars.Can't tell you where though.

What's this, 128kb?

One thing that you really can't tell about pre's just from listening to a single comparison is headroom. The Mackie has none. The RNP, Amek and GR are all miles ahead on that count.

Yon,
Yes, the files are 128 KB ...

Nikko,
It may be the case that the headroom of the Mackie does not measure up to that of the others but I have never encountered that problem ... however the sound quality is an issue too IMO. Tons of headroom with crap sound is usless. I'm not saying any of the pres here are crappy sounding, just saying good tone is first in my book. A recordist can work around headroom issues if they know what they are doing ....

johnnyrock,
I agree that the RNP would be a great inexpensive pre to get if you don't already have a mixer like the Mackie around but I feel it would be redundant if you did. I really don't see it as sounding better than a Mackie. This is what I have been saying all along. Fletcher says the RNP is particularly well suited for use with ribbon mics and I can see that. In that scenareo, the extra high end of the RNP would probably be a bonus.

I also agree the RNP is better suited to be compared to a Sytek or a Presonus.. but I myself am just not interested in that type of stuff. I personally look at those types of pres as more of what I already have in the Mackie. The main reason I have been so curious about the RNP is because of all the hype claiming that "the RNP sounds as good as pre amps many times it's cost". I don't feel based on what I have heard so far that this is the case. But the jury's not in just yet! I will do some audio clips of these pres with bass and acoustic guitar this weekend and amend the post early next week.

My point is that the Mackie can sometimes actually provide workable tones, but the lack of headroom makes it unsuitable for serious work.

nikko,
I don't see it that way at all. :confused: I really have never encountered a situation where headroom in a Mackie was an issue.. and I have recorded punk, metal, blues and gospel music using my SR24vlz. It is not my first choice for recording but in a pinch it works.. plenty of dynamic range.

Can you please elaborate?

That's cool if you don't mind the Mackie. Personally, I've had to use them and don't care for them one bit. I find that you have to be very conservative on the levels or it turns into a fuzz box. I've heard decent stuff done with them. It is certainly possible. But I'd rather not have to "work around" my gear to get good sounds. I guess that's the point I was trying to make. Just because a piece can sound OK, doesn't necessarily mean its a joy to work with.

nikko,
I used it on a couple of remotes and when I did bands for TV broadcasts on KSAR's "Jazzline" in Los Gatos CA. I also used it to record Nick Turner at the Great American Music Hall in SF for a Cleopatra Records release.

Now, I use only outboard pres like the Sebatron, 9098's, Millennina, JLM and only use the Mackie to monitor and mix phones from my DAW.

I will say that for some reason, the SR24 vlz, seems to sound better than any other Mackie I have ever used incuding an 8 Bus ... I suppose it might be a better power supply or something but that's just a guess..

Here's a little fuel to the cheap pre fire...I got an email response from Roger Nichols (from his outboard gear forum) who raved up the Rane single channel cheapie..Said he used some on Steely Dan's Live CD..."Not a Neve or Manley but not far off... and great bang for the buck"..He could be pulling my leg butI have never heard one ... now I am curious..It it suck$ I can use it in my aquarium...

Ray

Originally posted by RaySolinski:
"..He could be pulling my leg butI have never heard one ...
Ray

I dont believe he's pulling your leg!

Hey Kurt-
If you spell FMR and RNP to avaoid linkage, why do you use Neves API, Grace, and Great River without alteration? I don't get it.
Just wondering.

Originally posted by sdevino:

...Thats about all I need to know about a $250 comp.

Steve

You mean preamp, right, Steve?

Bill
I believe Kurt wants to endorse those products, because he likes them. He doesn't want to endorse the others. I on the other hand, will take what I can get :c:

i couldn't tell anything from the demo. it seemed like the levels were off between the preamps witch kinda puts things into different perspectives

i used ot have a mackie and the difference in real life between the mackie and the rnp is huge. i have a rnp and a great river now and they aren't even close to sounding the same but they get used on different sounds in the songs.

i have to say i agree with Johnson...

not to disparage Kurts efforts, but to me it sounded that on the RNP clips that the mic kept getting closer and closer, like there was more proximaty effort kicking on the latter clips.

While i realize i am only supposed to be listening for the A/Bing of the pairs more than anything the experiment seemed simply to reinforce to me that mic placement is more crucial a factor than mic pre.

greg

Which is why these types of tests are not too conclusive. As much as half a decibel between tracks can blur the listeners discernment. An inch discrepancy in mic placement can also throw it any frame of reference to judge from. There are other important factors.

I agree as well that the difference between my RNP and VLZ-Pro's preamps is quite noticable. Especially over accumulating tracks. Night and day, IMO. The RNP is in a much higher league.

Do appreciate the time and effort Kurt took.

Originally posted by Bowisc:

I agree as well that the difference between my RNP and VLZ-Pro's preamps is quite noticable. Especially over accumulating tracks. Night and day, IMO. The RNP is in a much higher league.

Do appreciate the time and effort Kurt took.

I agree (both on the quality of the RNP and on appreciating Kurt's time/effort) ... now Kurt, if you could record a 60 track opus with each of the mic pres, making sure levels, mic placement and performances are all identical, so that we might hear the sound of each pre with track accumulation that'd be great.

cheers,
greg

Try the Mackie for overheads,then try RNP and I guarantee you will hear the difference.
Luke

Use what you've got,after all, it's all that you have.

I'm not finished with the RNP yet. The acoustic guitar tells me more than anything else IMO, that's why I always start with it. I will be trying the RNP with overheads and snare / kick combinations on a drum kit at some point, as well as on some female vocals this weekend. I would also like to hear it on an electric guitar amp and as a bass di. So the jury' s still out ... I don't wish to rush to final judgment.

I will comment that I don't care for the lack of a XLR output on the RNP, the 1/4" jack is great for interfacing in a semi pro studio but sucked for me, as all my pre amp snakes to my patch bays are XLR.

As far as the method I used, I said and I repeat, the individual passes should be only compared to each other. The RNP vs. The Amek Neve, RNP vs. Sebatron, etc.. two matched mics, placed next to each other were used to do the recordings. I have considered other methods. I am right now investigating getting a splitter of some type but I am not having much luck finding something that will not color or distort the signal before it reaches the mic pres.. so it seems to me the approach I have taken is the lesser of 3 evils.. nothing is perfect.

I suppose no matter what I do there will always be the detractors claiming that what is heard in these one on one comparisons, is not showing the true colors of what the RNP is. I can't say why people want to defend the RNP so staunchly, perhaps they need to validate their own purchase decisions, perhaps they are concerned that clients will not perceive the RNP as a "pro" piece of gear, some are protecting their business interests and some perhaps, simply don't know any better. I have noticed that many people appear to think "brighter is better"... I personally like a warmer darker sound, especially with digital recorders.

While the RNP seems to be a fine utility type pre, much akin to a Mackie or the pres commonly found in other lower priced mixers (even at this preliminary juncture) IMO, it does not live up to the marketing hype that "it as good as mic pres many times it's price" It is not as good as the Neve Amek or Neve Clones I have here and that has been the point of contention for me all along. I have never said the RNP sucked but I have said I thought the hyperbole was a bit much and I have always felt that it was a tad overpriced for what it is. I still think the Sebatron vmp blows the doors off this thing at near the same price point per channel.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:

I have noticed that many people appear to think "brighter is better"... I personally like a warmer darker sound, especially with digital recorders.

Hey Kurt, I think you really hit this one on the head. I did a voice-over using the Sebatron VMP-4000e into Pro Tools and it warmed it up soooooo much! Can't say enough. This is why we use different pres in the first place. I must admit I'm attracted to a brighter sound when monitoring (or after a long session eek) but when HD recording, IMHO, warmer is spot on. A nice tip passed on to the digi world....
:tu:

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
I suppose no matter what I do there will always be the detractors claiming that what is heard in these one on one comparisons, is not showing the true colors of what the RNP is. I can't say why people want to defend the RNP so staunchly...

Perhaps they do so because they are correct in their contention that the RNP is a higher quality preamp than those found in a Mackie. :)

You may not find it to be to your liking but this would hardly be the first instance of audio types being in disagreement concerning a piece of gear. Perhaps your preference for warmer pres makes you less apt to want to even bother making a distinction between clean pres.

While you may be baffled by why some praise the RNP so much there are others who are equally as baffled by your insistence on stating that a Mackie will do just as well.

Who is right?

Your opinion is your's, their's is their's. However, it is a little presumtuous of you to contend that if they DO like the RNP it MUST be do to the fact that...

they need to validate their own purchase decisions, perhaps they are concerned that clients will not perceive the RNP as a "pro" piece of gear, some are protecting their business interests and some perhaps, simply don't know any better.

Also,

I have noticed that many people appear to think "brighter is better"... I personally like a warmer darker sound, especially with digital recorders.

Different strokes! I actually prefer brighter sounds for acoustic guitar and, for example, found the Sebatron sample to be too mushy for my taste... Although some of that i attributed to mic placement as i found the RNP sample paired with the Seb sample to be mushier too.

There is no answer to this question. Doesn't mean we shouldn't ask, we just shouldn't get too excited if we don't all agree. vive la diffrence!

greg

Hi, I think Greg is dead on here too, "we shouldn't get excited if we don't all agree". That's what makes everything so unique and our sound. IMO, once we've achived quality S/N could it not be taste? It seems choosing a pre amps is starting to sound like choosing guitar strings ( guage, flat wound, silk, nylon etc.) That's how I see it. :D

In this example, I liked the RNP and wouldn't mind having them to distribute. It sounds like a good deal for the money, much better than the Mackie.

Chris,
From what I have heard so far, I wouldn't recommend a RNP to anyone. Not at the price it sells for. If it were maybe $250, I would think it was worth it but I feel it is overpriced at $499.

While I reserve my final judgment, there are a number of things I don't care for about the RNP. It is electronically balanced, forgoing the use of transformers, like the Sytek and Mackie pres. Everyone complains that Mackies are thin, bright and brittle. Well, the RNP is thiner, brighter and more brittle sounding. It has no depth, no good warm low end response. It does not make acoustic guitars sound huge like a Neve, Sebatron or a Great River MP-NV does. I don't care for the sound I have so far heard from the RNP, I hate the 1/4" output jack, I really dislike the coarse gain adjustment, in some situations, and I found it to be too much or not enough. I haven't pulled the thing apart so I can't speak to the construction but I suspect it to be a lot of chips and robotically surface mounted components. If the RNP were to fail, it would probably cost more to repair than replace. At the least, the most cost effective thing would most likely be to be to return it to FMR for a replacement of a whole assembly component. This kind of gear does not lend it's self to repair in the field.

I will be running the RNP through some more comparisons as soon as I get a drummer in here and if it performs better in these tests I will happily say so. I have absolutely no reason to not like the RNP other than I don't care for the overall design philosophy. I do admit that I have an attitude about it because of the constant hyperbole from FMR saying it is “as good as mic pres many times it's cost” and how they try to insinuate that there is a "buzz" about the piece because it is so great. Well I don't think so. Does it have the headroom that a vintage Neve has? Perhaps, but that's not all there is to it IMO. Headroom coupled to sound that is thin, bright, harsh and with no balls is not a good thing.

The last thing I have always brought up is, the RNP has been out for a while now. Why aren't we hearing of guys like Roger Nichols (who recommends a Rane for a cheap pre) using or recommending it? Why aren't we seeing it in use on remotes instead of the Presonus M80? Why aren’t we seeing them in the big dollar rooms? Could it be that it’s ‘cause they aren’t all that and a bag of chips too?

I will say the RNP is an improvment over the mic pres implemented in a lot of the stand alone DAWs like the Korg 1600. I took a cheap $179 pre over to a friends house who has a kid that is learning to record. I am mentoring him and trying to open his horizons to types of gear. The kid had no clue to what a different pre or mic could do for the sound with his Korg and when we tried the outboard pre it was a marked improvement. So I can see the argument for the RNP or other inexpensive pres in a situation like that but I still think it’s overpriced.

Wow, I'm shocked! this is the first time I've seen a negative opinion from Kurt regarding any piece of gear he's reviewed. Finally! I'm proud of you Kurt, unfortunately its no coincidence its your old nemesis the RNP!

Already cored apples vs. peeled oranges???

I havent heard it YET...(i know i will soon) but I gotta believe that as a front end for DAW or for stand alone digital its gotta be better than what they put on those cards and the pres in the standalones.

BUT, in defense of Kurts opinion, is it any better than one of those Ranes,or the Sound Projects,or the Symetrix(I doubt that!)Is it better than an ART MPA? It is certainly a different topology....better? I'll have the peeled orange.

Kurt,

I think the un biased gear seekers hear the passion coming out on this one, I sure do. I know your getting questioned by the folks that have either bought an RNP or that have special interest in the success of an RNP. This is to be expected and the same goes for the political rath that will follow when something gets a bad critique.
Bottom line, if something is worth it's price tag, I believe you will say it like it is. There is no reason to BS around here. No one gets paid for being here or doing reviews, comparision's or topics.
I appreciate your honesty and look forward to more comparision's down the road.

Excellent thread, very thorough!

Cheers!

Originally posted by Bloux:
Wow, I'm shocked! this is the first time I've seen a negative opinion from Kurt regarding any piece of gear he's reviewed. Finally! I'm proud of you Kurt, unfortunately its no coincidence its your old nemesis the RNP!

Nice try.
But it's not a review... I don't post reviews on the BB, what I said is simply the opinion of one RO member ...
:D