:shock:

Nathan,
I hope that people see through all this.

First, not that it's any of your (or anyone else's) business, the review agreement sent to Dan, stated that the manufacturer was to pay the shipping both ways. This is very common. I was finished with the unit within several weeks (the agreement asks for 14 weeks up front) and I notified Dan when the article was to run. In fact he was allowed to proof it for inaccuracies prior to publication. I received a very nice E Mail from Dan where he said "That's a very nice review". He never asked for the unit back and I have been right here where I can be contacted by E Mail PM or on the BB, everyday wondering if he ever would. In his last Email to me Dan said

Dan Kennedy wrote: "I did pretty much forget about it, so it's my fault as well"

I did not expect to be allowed to keep the unit for no charge but when the pick up tags do not come or the manufacturer doesn't ask for the piece back ... ???

BTW, you failed to mention that reviewers are usually offered an accommodation price on the review units. This is usually near dealer cost and allows the manufacturer to avoid the expense of having what is essentially, a used unit, returned. It's a win win for all parties involved. When Dan asked for the unit back the other day, he did at that point offer me an accommodation price.

Dan did not need to say anything in public (as you asserted), although it doesn't bother me one bit that he did as I have nothing to hide. All he had to do was send the pick up tags or write me an E mail; requesting the return of the unit (and you know that). He sent me an email at the same time he posted .... and I replied immediately. The unit is boxed up and ready to go. No problem.

You are wrong about Mix. The writers are paid .... I know this for a fact. I am not sure but I think the review units are purchased by the Mix editors. I know that review units are supplied to the writers by the magazine. JoeH could confirm these things as he is a writer for Mix. I have to arrange for units myself with the manufacturers. Not the ideal situation I agree but I have no alternatives. If you would like to supply me review units to insure complete integrity I would be happy to abide by that. I do not get paid in any way by RO for my articles either so having to pay for return shipping would be out of pocket for me. I'm not going to do that.

If you can find anything in my articles that is plagiarized, please bring it to my attention. I can assure you I write all the content myself unless indicated by quotes.

I hope that clears up any misunderstandings your post may have created.

Humbucker Jake.
First, transformers are passive devices. Even the RNP could implement them although that would be contrary to the "transparent" approach they say they are implementing. "Transparent" pres like the RNP / Mackie are the least expensive to build which is why all the "affordable" pres claim to be of the "transparent" type. Transformers and components that add color or sonic signature are usually expensive.

The RNP manual states it will run on any transformer that provides at least 8 volts and at any polarity. What I refer to as "real mic pres", use a lot more volts than that usually, at least 24 and 14 volt rails and some of the better units use even more than that. Up to now it has been accepted by most the high end manufacturers that high voltages are required for full bandwidth (bass extention as well as an effortless high end) and headroom. This may be changing with designs coming out from manufacturers like Neve that are employing wall warts but as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on that one. I am not sure whether the standard of quality is being lowered due to mp3's and delivery systems like IP0Ds that don't reveal the sonic subtleties or that the technology is getting better. I fear the first and am ambivalent to the second until it's proven.
.

My listing session with the RNP did not impress me .... but I can honestly say I wish it did. If it had, I would have another "affordable" pre I could recommend that is more transparent than "The Brick" which I should have mentioned (as you point out) is not completely transparent (although it's not that bad). But I would rather recommend a less transparent pre that offers full headroom, bandwidth and some dimension as opposed to recommending something that is a "close but no cigar" kind of thing that offers no dimension, because it's the best thing the "low end" has to offer.

If someone wants a really decent transparent mic pre, the Grace 201 is the least expensive one that I know of I would be comfortable recommending.

All things said, all things considered, I think my track record speaks for itself. No one has ever come to me and said "That mic or that pre (or whatever) you recommended is a POS".

Wow Kurt, you are certainly typing through a minefield in this topic!

I loves my ISA428 - to my (limited) ear, it's quite transparent, the price is right (lower end of your range), has some nice features, and has been very reliable. I know it's not the bees knees pre, but I plan to buy one of Dan's GR pres as well to supplement. Odd no-one has mentioned the 428 (not that I read anyway).

Ok. This appears to have run way off course. Say goodbye...